SHILPI GUPTA Vs. PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD
LAWS(MPH)-2001-5-23
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on May 07,2001

SHILPI GUPTA Appellant
VERSUS
PROFESSIONAL EXAMINATION BOARD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The factual matrix and grounds of law raised being similar this batch of writ petitions was heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. As a detailed return has been filed in Writ Petition No. 156/2001 I will deal with the facts of the said case for the sake of convenience and clarity. I will also refer to the grievances of the writ petitioners in other writ petitions at the appropriate place.
(2.)In Writ Petition No. 156/2001 the facts as have been unfolded are that the petitioner was selected for the purpose of engineering education. She was called at the Selection Centre situate at Bhopal. As she had not obtained adequate marks she was given admission without allotment of any Branch. She was directed to appear at the Engineering College, Jabalpur. The petitioner in compliance of the said direction appeared and according to her merits was allotted B.E. Mechanical Branch. After due formalities she started attending her classes. At that juncture an advertisement was published in the local newspaper 'Nav Bharat' dt. 5-1-2001 mentioning therein that as per the instructions given by the Director, Technical Education, the allotments of Branches made in the Engineering courses on 23-12-2000 has been cancelled and that those who have participated in the counselling held on that date would compulsorily apply for the fresh allotment of the branches. It is putforth in the petition that Rule 2.6.1 of the Rules for admission to First Year of B.E./B.Arch. courses 2000 (hereinafter after referred to as 'the Rules') contains the procedure for admission of the students. Rule 2.6.3 contains the procedure for payment of fees and allotment of branches. Rule 2.6.4 specifically lays down that if a candidate fails to appear at the time of counselling he/she will loss his/her chance to get the branch according to the merit and subsequently if he/she appears that he/she will be given allotment of seat/institution/branch according to the availability. Reference has also been made to Rule 2.6.8 of the Rules which stipulates a condition that once a candidate takes admission in any course/institution/branch he would not be allowed to change the course or institution or the branch. After issuance of the impugned notice the petitioner enquired and she was given a form to fill up though she never intended to change her branch. It has been putforth that she was compelled to fill up the form which contains the heading 'application for change of branch in the institution.' It has been urged in the petition that the action taken by the respondents is without any authority and the branches allotted to the students cannot be cancelled when the formalities have been completed. With these averments a prayer has been made for quashment of notice whereby the allotment of the branches made on 23-12-2000 has been cancelled and further to issue a direction restraining the respondents from proceeding further with regard to issue of different branch to the petitioner in Engineering course.
(3.)A return has been filed by respondent No. 1, Professional Examination Board, M.P., taking the stand that the said respondent had conducted the examination and prepared the merit list and forwarded the same to the Director of Technical Education and the concerned Engineering Colleges for further action. It is also putforth that the counselling is conducted and regulated by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 and the Board has nothing to do with it.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.