Honble KOKJE, J. — The revision petitioner was a candidate for admission to One of the Engineering Colleges in Rajasthan The non-petitioner University held a test called Pre Engineering Test (PET) for admission of candidates from Rajasthan (at Jaipur, Jodhpur, Kota, Bhilwara and Udaipur ) against seats allotted to the State of Rajasthan in 15 Regional Engineering Colleger in India for the year 1994. The rules of admission were published by the University and made available to that candidates in the form of a booklet entitled " INFORMATION BOOKLET FOR PRE-ENGINEERING TEST (PET ) 1994" . The rules provided for reservations of certain number of seats for different categories of candidates. One of the reserved categories was that of children of Ex-Servicemen and the revision petitioner applied to be considered in that category. The non - petitioners held him in-eligible for being considered in that category on the ground that his father was not of Rajasthan origin in the Army which according to the non-petitioners, was a condition of eligibility for the category of children of Ex-Servicemen . The non-petitioners refused admission to the petitioner as he did not qualify for admission in General category and was not eligible for being considered in Children of Ex-Servicemen category.

(2). The revision petitioner filed a suit challenging the non- petitioners refusal to grant him admission and moved an application for grant of temporary injunction directing grant of provisional admission to him. The trial court granted the temporary injunction but the appellate Court reversed the order and rejected the application for temporary injunction. This Order of the appellate Court is under challenge in this petition.

(3). I have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the orders of the lower Courts as well as the Booklet containing rules for admission.

(4). A bare perusal of the appellate order shows that the appellate Court set aside the order of trial court interpreting the rule in a different way and has actually decided the sole point of controversy finally leaving nothing further to be decided by the trial Court except formally passing a decree in terms of the interpretation put on the rules by the appellate Court. The following extracts from the appellate Courts order would bear this out:

^^------------izR;FkhZ nhid dkSky dk firk fufoZokn :i ls jktLFkku fuoklh ugha Fkk cfYd eqtQjuxj mRrj iznsk dk fuoklh gS tks vihykFkhZx.k uis ih-bZ-Vh----] 94 ds izosk krksZssaa ckcr lwpuk if=dk fudkyh gS] mlds ist la[;k 4 ds fu;e 2 ds mi fu;e 1 ds prqFkZ ^^vkj** esa cksVe esa tks krZ nh xbZ gS] mlds vuqlkj jktLFkku vksfjtuy okys gh HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds iq=ksa dks HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds dksVs esa vkj{k.k dh lqfo/kk nh xbZ gS ftlds vUrxZr izkFkhZ&izRFkhZ dk dsl ugha vkrk gSA ;ksX; v/khuLFk vf/kdkjh us vkisf{kr vknsk ds vuqlkj tks viuk foosdkf/kdkj iz;ksx fd;k gS] og mi;ZqDr fu;eksa ds foijhr gSA vxj izkFkhZ lkekU; dksVs esa izosk pkgs rks vo; fu;eksa esa vkrk Fkk D;ksafd lkekU; dksVs ds vuqlkj rks izkFkhZ&izRFkhZ }kjk nks o"kZ gh jktLFkku esa v/;;u djuk vko;d Fkk ijUrq HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds dksVs ds fy, rks izkFkhZ&izRFkhZ ds firk dk jktLFkku vksfjtuy dk gksuk vko;d FkkA esjh jk; esa izkFkhZ&izRFkhZ dh rjQ ls tks vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dk okn v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa isk fd;k x;k gS] mlesa lQyrk dh vkkk ugha gS vkSj u gh izkFkhZ&izRFkhZ ds i{k esa izFke n`"V;k dsl ik;k tkrk gSA lqfo/kk dk larqyu o vifjfer {kfr Hkh izkFkhZ ds i{k esa ugha ikbZ tkrh gS D;ksafd mls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ vf/kdkj HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds vkj{k.k dksVs esa ih-bZ-Vh- 94 ds izosk gsrq tkjh lwpuk if=dk ds vuqlkj ugha feyrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk iz;ksx fd;s x;s foosdkf/kdkj esa gLr{ksi djus ds lhfer vf/kdkj gS ijUrq esjh jk; esa visf{kr vknsk }kjk ftl foosdkf/kdkj dk iz;ksx v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ ds i{k esa fd;k gS] og ih-Vh-bZ-Vh- 1994 ds izosk laca/kh lwpuk if=dk esa fn;s x;s fu;eksa ds vUrxZr ugha gksus ls fof/k vuq:i ugha gSA vr% v

Click Here to Read the rest of this document