BRAJESH KUMAR DUBEY Vs. RANI DURGAWATI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the action of the respondents in cancelling the admission granted to the petitioner in LL.M. course by the Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Facts in nutshell go to show that the petitioner passed the LL.B. final year examination in the academic session 2009-2010 and in the said examination obtained 53.54% marks. He appeared in the qualifying entrance examination conducted for admission to the LL.M. course for the academic session 2012 and accordingly petitioner was granted admission after depositing the tuition fees in April, 2012. He was not permitted to appear in the LL.M. first semester examination and when his results were not declared, it seems that he filed a writ petition before this Court bearing W.P. No. 14454/2012, which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.

(2.) It is now pointed out that vide impugned order, the representation of the petitioner was decided and instead of granting benefit to the petitioner, his admission itself for the LL.M. course was cancelled. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to two judgments of the Supreme Court namely Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University and another, 1986 Supp1 SCC 740and Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur and others, 1989 1 SCC 399, and contended that when admission was granted to a candidate without concealment of any fact then the University cannot cancel the admission of the student concerned and for a mistake committed by the authorities, the student cannot be put to loss. It is also contended that the respondents/University cannot act in any arbitrary and illegal manner in cancelling the admission of the candidate, even if he was ineligible for admission the same should be regularised now when there is no error on the part of the student. Accordingly, contending that the petitioner did not conceal any fact with regard to cut-off marks received in the LL.B. examination and after scanning his documents he was granted admission on accepting the fees, now the respondents cannot cancel his admission on the ground that he did not receive minimum 55% marks required for admission in the LL.M. course. Shri Dubey, further argued that the act of the respondents in cancelling the admission of the petitioner could not be upheld.