The court affirmed that a student cannot claim results from an institution where they were not lawfully admitted.

1. Heard.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent / authorities to declare the petitioner's result of the B.Ed course for the academic session 2007-08.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected in the examination conducted for making admission to B.Ed course and thereafter, he took admission in the respondent No.4 / institution. It is submitted that though the petitioner prosecuted his studies and appeared in the examination, the respondent / University has not declared the petitioner's result, hence, this petition.

4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the result of the other students of the respondent No.4 institution has been declared in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent / University in W.P. No.2961/2013 but the result of the petitioner has been withheld. On the basis of the aforesaid contention, the petitioner has sought compensation amounting to the tune of Rs.2 Lakhs.

5. The respondent / University has filed a return and has stated that the petitioner has appeared in the entrance examination and thereafter, he was allotted institution at 612, Nawambe Shiksha Samiti, 52, Ramnagar, Adhartal, Jabalpur for the purposes of prosecuting his B.Ed course. However, the petitioner instead of taking admission in the aforesaid institution for the purpose of prosecuting his studies, approached the respondent No.4 and obtained admission in the respondent No.4 / institution, knowing fully well that he had been allotted another college and not the respondent No.4 / college for the purpose of prosecuting his studies.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent / University submits that as the petitioner did not take admission in the institution allotted to the petitioner and chose to take admission at his own level without going through the proper authorities and without being allotted the respondent No.4 / college and therefore, the respondent / University has not declared his result.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 institution submits that the petitioner had filed an application before them stating that he wanted to take admission in their institution, as the fee being charged by the institution which has been allotted to him in the counselling was high and that he had difficulty in commuting. It is submitted that on the request of the petitioner, the respondent No.4 granted him admission and thereafter, also sent his name as a student of their institution for the purpose of examination in which he was permitted to appear. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the petition be allowed.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in the instant petition, admittedly the petitioner did not take admission in the institution that was allotted to him in the counselling. It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that without going through the process of counselling, the petitioner obtained admission in the respondent No.4 / institution and that the respondent No.4 / institution granted him admission on their own, knowing fully well that the petitioner had not been allotted their institution in counselling and therefore the admission of the petitioner in the respondent no.4 was illegal and contrary to law.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any fault in the action of the University in not declaring the petitioner's result. We also do not find any ground to allow the petition and grant the relief as sought for declaration of the result and compensation.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fault can be found in action t