- (1.)The facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner Dilip Kumar had passed his First Year T. D. C. Examination in 1983 obtaining 266 marks out of a total of 450 marks. He applied for admission to the First Year B. E. Degree Course (sic) as the University of Jodhpur conducted the Pre-Engineering Test (for short 'P. E. T.') for admission to that class and the test was held in 1983. The petitioner appeared at that test and was called for interview. The letter of interview was issued on 24-8-83 fixing the date of interview as 6-9-83. In that letter vide column C(4), the students were warned that they have to produce the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination of 1983 by 14-7-83 (sic). The case of the petitioner was that the original mark-sheet issued by the University had been submitted by him for revaluation and that was not available with him on that account on 14-7-83. However, the revised mark-sheet was issued to him on 18-8-83 and he produced the same before the Interview Board at the M. B. M. Engineering College on 6-9-83 the date fixed for his interview. He was, however, not admitted and according to him, the reason for the refusal of admission was that the mark-sheet of the First Year T. D. C. had not been submitted by him by 14-7-83. His further contention is that candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the P. E. T. were, however, admitted and thus he was discriminated against. He, therefore, approached this Court on 13-9-83 for a writ of mandamus directing the non-petitioners, the University of Jodhpur and the Dean, Faculty of Engineering to give admission to the petitioner in the First Year B. E. Degree Course of the University of Jodhpur. A show cause notice before admission was issued to the non-petitioners on 13-9-83. An application for stay was also filed by the petitioner and on that application on that day, an order was made that in the meantime, one seat will be kept vacant to accommodate the petitioner in the First Year of the Faculty of Engineering. The University of Jodhpur then filed an application under Art.226(3) of the Constitution for getting the stay order vacated and it was pleaded that all the seats of the First Year Engineering for that year had already been filled in before the stay order was passed. In that application, it was, inter alia, also alleged that the Centralised Admission Committee was a necessary party, which had not been impleaded. In view of this application, the learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application for amending the writ petition by impleading the Convenor, Centralised Admission Committee, University of Jodhpur and the Registrar, P.E.T., University of Jodhpur as non-petitioners. That application was allowed vide order dt. 7-2-84 and the amended cause title was filed in April by the petitioner. No reply to the original writ petition or the amended one has been filed on behalf of any of the non-petitioners. A second application for stay was filed by the petitioner on 25-7-84 alleging that the year 1983 was out and now fresh admissions are going to be made for the First Year Engineering for the year 1984 and, therefore, one seat may be kept vacant for the petitioner for the First Year B. E. Degree Course for the year 1984. This application was opposed on behalf of non-petitioners 3 and 4 by filing a reply. In that reply, it was stated that the petitioner had failed to furnish the original mark-sheet of the First Year T.D.C. the qualifying examination by 14-7-83 and, therefore, he was not entitled to admission and admission was rightly refused to him. It was also stated in the application under Art. 226(3) "That it is not disputed by the petitioner that he did not submit his mark-sheet by 14-7-1983 or even before he appeared for interview on 6-9-1983." However, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners that the original mark-sheet of First Year T.D.C. Examination of 1983 had been produced by the petitioner before the authorities concerned on 6-9-1983.
(2.)I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.
(3.)The case was initially listed for orders but with the agreement of the parties, arguments had been heard on the main petition itself.