The court emphasized the importance of universities specifying essential qualifications for admission and acting with responsibility to avoid causing uncompensatable loss to students.

R.S. Jha, J.

1. The Petitioner who had approached this Court in the year 2009 had initially sought a relief of a direction to the Respondent University to forthwith conduct a special examination of M. Sc Previous (Botany) Course and allow her to appear in it. The Petitioner in the alternative has sought relief of awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs only for causing undue mental agony and hardship and for wasting one precious year of the Petitioner.

2. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present petition, are that the Petitioner, who was a Science Graduate i.e. B. Sc (Biology) with Bio-Technology as a subject, applied for admission in M. Sc (Botany) Course for which applications were invited by the Respondent University by information brochure published for the year 2008-09. The Petitioner deposited her form with the Respondents on 26.2.2009 alongwith the requisite fees of Rs. 6,900/-and was granted admission in the M. Sc (Botany) Course. The Petitioner was also permitted to participate in the practical examination held sometime in the month of June-July 2009. In August 2009 the Respondent University published the schedule for M. Sc (Botany) Previous Examination which was notified to be held from 25.9.2009 to 7.10.2009 which date was later deferred to 5.10.2009.

3. As required, the Petitioner deposited her examination form alongwith the requisite fees on 26.8.2009 but the same was returned to her on 28.8.2009, Annexure P-7, with a note that the Petitioner was not eligible to participate in the Examination of M. Sc (Botany) Previous as she did not have Botany as a subject in her B. Sc course. Similar communication was issued to the Petitioner on 29.8.2009. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the Petitioner served a legal notice upon the Respondent University on 10.9.2009 in response to which the Respondent University issued a letter on 26.9.2009 which was received by the Petitioner on 29.9.2009 to the effect that the Petitioner would be permitted to participate in the M. Sc (Botany) Previous examination provided she withdrew her legal notice.

4. As the examination was scheduled to commence from 5.10.2009 and the period given to the Petitioner was far too short to enable her to appear in the aforesaid examination, she immediately filed the present petition before this Court praying for the reliefs as stated in para-7.

5. It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has lost one valuable academic year on account of the casual and negligent act on the part of the Respondent University and in such circumstances the Petitioner is entitled to cost and compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs on that count. The Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal v. Rakesh Kewat and Anr. 2009 (5) MPHT 178; Madan Singh Thakur v. Board of Secondary Education M.P., Bhopal 2010 (4) MPLJ SN 7 and Prem Ratan Agrawal v. Board of Secondary Education Bhopal and Ors. 2002 (2) MPLJ 588.

6. Per contra the Learned Counsel for the Respondent University submitted that the Petitioner did not possess the degree in B. Sc (Biology) with Botany as a subject which was necessary for prosecuting studies in M. Sc (Botany) Previous. It is stated that the Petitioner was given admission inadvertently and was also permitted to participate in the practical examination. However, while scrutinizing her form at the time of the examination it was found that the Petitioner was not eligible and in such circumstances the impugned communication dated 28.8.2009 and 29.8.2009 were issued to the Petitioner. It is further submitted that on the Petitioner issuing a legal notice to the Respondent on 10.9.2009 the Respondent University issued a letter permitting the Petitioner to appear in the M. Sc (Botany) Previous examination inspite of which she chose not to appear in the same. In such circumstances, it is submitted that there is lapse on the part of the Petit