- (1.) V. K. Shukla, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order 2-6-2003, by means of which candidature of the petitioner for being admitted in LL. B. Ist year course has been cancelled.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that petitioner has to his credit Master Degree with B. Ed. , and he had been pursuing his research work in Hindi. In the meantime, he took admission to LL. B. Ist year course in the academic session 1998-99. Petitioner's candidature was cancelled on account of statutory provisions being there that two courses cannot be pursued simultaneously. Petitioner, after completing his research work, applied for consideration of his candidature as LL. B. student for enabling him to appear in entrance examination, 2003, and thereafter, the impugned communication has been passed, which is subject-matter of challenge. To this writ petition, counter-affidavit has been filed, and therein much stress has been laid on the fact that in the past petitioner had been suspended on account of gross in discipline on his part, and later on, on apology being tendered by him, liberal view had been taken and his suspension had been revoked, and at that point of time, petitioner had made to understand to the University authorities that after completing research work, no further course would be pursued by him. It has been further asserted that as per Rules, candidature of petitioner has rightly been cancelled; as such no interference should be made. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed annexing therewith the letter dated 26-2-2000, by means of which candidature of the petitioner had been cancelled. Averments made in the counter- affidavit have been rebutted and the statement of fact mentioned in the writ petition has been reiterated. After the pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged, matter has been taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, Sri S. K. Srivastava contended with vehements that candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly cancelled as admission, which had been provided to the petitioner in the past would not come in the way of the petitioner, as the aforementioned admission had been cancelled on account of ineligibility, as such candidature of petitioner cannot be ousted by any means. Smt. Sunti Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the University contended that looking to the past conduct of the petitioner together with the fact that in the past whatever may be the reason, petitioner has been accorded admission in LL. B. Course, as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed. In order to appreciate the respective submissions, relevant rule, which covers the field in respect to admission in LL. B. Course has to be looked into. The said rule is Rule 5 (1), which provides that if a student, who has been admitted in LL. B. Ist year, but has failed in the examination or has not appeared in the examination, will not be entitled to readmission in the said course. This particular rule has been made basis and foundation for non-suiting the candidature of the petitioner. Petitioner's admission in LL. B. Ist year in the academic session 1998-99 had been cancelled on the ground that he was ineligible. Once the admission itself has been cancelled then it is no admission in the eyes of law, especially when the admission had been cancelled on the ground of ineligibility, as such cancellation of petitioner's admission in 1998-99 sessions could not be made foundation and basis for non-suiting the candidature of the petitioner in the subsequent year. The provisions, which are being relied on, are in respect to the candidates who have been validity admitted. As far as case of the petitioner is concerned, his admission has been cancelled, and thus this particular rule will not come in the way of the petitioner to non-suit him for consideration of his candidature in subsequent year when he is eligible, as such the order impugned is absolutely erroneous and deserves to be quashed.;