CHAIRMAN JEE IIT GUWAHATTI Vs. GURUJIT BHARDWAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this review petition, the review petitioner has sought to review the order dated 25-4 2005, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2475 of 2005 recording the concession given by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 (review petitioner) and disposing of the writ petition with an observation that the I.I.T. authority may declare the result of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and other similarly placed persons in accordance with their time schedule, on the basis of the concession made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the I I.T. authority.

(2.) The facts m brief is that a writ petition was filed by Shri Gurujeet Bharadwaj, resporident in the review petition, praying for issuing a direction to the respondents therein, more particularly, against the respondent No 2, namely, the Chairman, JEE, IIT, Guwahati to issue admit card by accepting the photo copy of the application form, original of which was sent by the writ petitioner by post, for appearing in the I.I T Joint Entrance examination for the session 2005-2006 scheduled to be held on 210-4-005 An interim prayer was also made for directing the respondents authority to issue admit card and for allowing him to sit in the I.I.T. Joint Entrance Examination for the said session scheduled to be held on 10 4-2005. The said writ petition was filed by the writ petitioner contending that the writ petitioner, who was pursuing his studies in Narayan IIT Academy, Kota, Rajasthan, to prepare himself lor the said joint entrance examination, sent the duly filled up application form to the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition, pursuant to advertisement issued in that respect, by Speed Post Service on 21-12-2004 as the last date of submission of form was 7-1-2005 But, when the petitioner did not get the admit card to be issued by the said authority to enable him to appear in the said Joint entrance examination, he enquired at the IIT, Guwahati Office, who has informed him that the respondent authority has not received the application form. Thereafter, the petitioner made an enquiry in the Head Post office at Kota from, where he sent the application by speed post service on 21-12-2004, and on enquiry he was informed by the Postal authority that the said speed post document was sent to the addressee but could not give confirmation about the delivery of the same to the addressee. The petitioner, thereafter, on 25-3-2005 filed a representation before the respondent authority intimating the entire fact and requesting them to allow him to sit in the examination by issuing admit card by enclosing there with the postal receipt as well as photo copy of the application filed by him before the postal authority at Kota. As no action was taken by the IIT authority of the representation submitted by the petitioner, he filed the W P.(C) No. 2475 of 2005. The said writ petition came up for consideration before the Court for the first time on 1-4-2005, on which date this Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant S.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 & 3 therein, namely, the Union of India represented by Ministry of Human Resources and Development and the Head Post Master, Business Post Center, Kota, Rajasthan, issued a notice of motion making the same returnable on 25-4-2005 and directing the writ petitioner to take steps for service of notice on the respondent No 2, namely, the Chairman, IIT, JEE, North Guwahati, Guwahati by registered post with A D. as well as personal service. Keeping in view the academic interest of the writ petitioner, an interim order was also passed directing the Chairman, JEE, IIT, Guwahati to issue a provisional admit card to the petitioner on the basis of the photo copy of the application form annexed as Annexure-B to the writ petition and to allow the writ petitioner to appear in the Joint Entrance examination to be held on 10-4-2005, however, it was directed that the authority shall not declare the result of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the provisional admit card was issued by the Respondent No. 2 authority (review petitioner herein) allowing the writ petitioner to appear in the said Joint Entrance examination i.e. screening test to be held on 10-4-2005, accordingly, the writ petitioner appeared in the said screening test The respondent No. 2 authority (review petitioner) thereafter, filed an affidavit in opposition before this Court contending that the writ petitioner was informed vide letter dated 4-4-2005 expressing their inability to allow him to take the examination by issuing an admit card for Joint Entrance Examination 2005 on the ground that they do not have the norms to do so as they cannot accept the the responsibility for any postal delay or irregularity or loss of application in postal transit. While the case was again listed for consideration on 25-4-2005, this Court upon hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as the learned counsel Mr. Apurba Kumar Sharma appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and Mr. H. Rahaman, Asstt. S. G. appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 & 3 disposed of the said writ petition with an observation that the IIT authority may declare the result of the petitioner and other similarly placed persons in accordance with their time schedule on the basis of the concession made by Mr. Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 (review petitioner) to the effect that in view of the order dated 1-4-2005 directing the respondent authority not to declare the result of the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 2 is not in a position to declare the result, which the respondent No. 2 has decided to declare, subject to the permission of this Court The respondent No. 2 (review petitioner) thereafter, has filed the present review petition seeking review of the said order dated 25-4-2005 on the ground that no such concession was made by the learned counsel appearing on his behalf and the submission made by the learned counsel was incorrectly recorded in the said order, however, without contending therein that the respondent No. 2 (review petitioner) never at any point of time instructed the learned counsel, appearing on his behalf, to make any such concession as recorded in the order dated 25-4-2005 or the concession made by the learned counsel does not bind the review petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K.Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner and Mr. H. Roy, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent in the review petition, who was the writ petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 2475 of 2005.