K.C.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) This special appeal is directed against the order dt/-13-10-1995 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The facts stated in brief are that the petitioner Yamini Shukla who is respondent 1 in the appeal has preferred a writ petition for quashing the selection of respondents 3 to 16 in the petition to the Master of Computer Application full time Degree Course 1995-96 (hereinafter referred to MCA) and to direct respondent No. 2, namely, the Birla Institute of Technology, Ranchi, to admit the petitioner in the MCA course of 1995-96. According to the petitioner she appeared in the qualifying examination for admission to MCA Full Time Degree Course 1995-96 of Birla Institute of Technology which was held at Lucknow in the month of June, 1990. The petitioner has also appeared in Part-III examination of B.Sc. from the Lucknow University in the same year. On the basis of the written examination, the call letter was issued to the petitioner for interview dt. 1-8-995 which was received by her on 8-8-1995. The petitioner's rank in the written examination was 26. An interview was held on 16-10-1995 at Ranchi in the campus of the Institute. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 16-10-1995 and submitted the original certificates. On 17-10-1995, a list of candidates who were admitted to the MCA course was displayed on the Notice Board of the Administrative Department of the Institute at Ranchi. The petitioner's name was missing from that list. It is alleged that the candidates who ranked below to the petitioners have been admitted to MCA course while the petitioner has been deprived of the admission without any cause being shown to the petitioner. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2, namely, the Birla Institute of Technology, alleging therein that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification at the relevant time for admission to the MCA course of 1995-96. It has been mentioned in the brochure which was supplied to the applicants that the candidate must be a graduate with mathematics/ statistics as one of the subjects and obtaining at least 50% marks in the aggregate. Later on, it has been alleged, that at the time of applying for admission to the MCA course, the petitioner had not acquired the requisite qualification. It is further alleged that in order to accommodate the petitioner, she was allowed to appear in the written examination at Lucknow as it was specifically mentioned in the brochure those who are appearing in their qualifying examination can also apply subject to publication of their result by July-August, 1995. It is further alleged that the petitioner having not been duly possessed of the graduation degree at the time of interview had no locus standi to file the present writ petition. The petitioner could not produce the graduate degree certificate at the time of interview and, therefore, her application was rejected and she was not given admission to the MCA course. It is submitted that the petitioner had cleared well both in the written examination and interview. Therefore, she got 13th position in the merit list but the admission was refused as stated above on the ground that she did not possess the qualification for admission at the time of interview. A rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner mentioning therein that she had applied to the University of Lucknow for an early result. This application was moved on 12/08/1995, a copy of which is Annexure RA-1. As per the brochure, the petitioner was allowed to file the mark-sheet by the end of July-August, 1995 and the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected on 17th of August, 1995 when the result was displayed on the notice board of the Institute. The appellant had received the result of the graduate degree examination of the petitioner in a sealed envelope addressed to Sri B. B. Misra, Controller, Entrance Examination, Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi. As the petitioner had fulfilled the requirement of the appellant, she could not have been refused admission on this ground. The petitioner had also indicated to the Selection Committee that her result of B.Sc. Part III examination is likely to be out in a week or tendays' time. After the declaration of the result, the petitioner further met Dr. P. K. Mohanti, Professor and Head of the Deptt. of Computer Science Engg. and asked him the reason for her not being included in the merit list. According to the petitioner, in another similar case admission has been made in spite of the fact that the result of B.Sc. Part-III Examination had not been declared and the mark-sheet was not produced at the time of interview. It has also been mentioned that in the previous year 1993- 94 admission was given to a candidate whose mark-sheet was not available at the time of interview and even the results were not declared by that time. When the petitioner's father met the Vice Chancellor on 19-8-1995 it was not disclosed or indicated that the petitioner had not been admitted because she had failed to submit her qualifying examination result at the time of interview. The petitioner received a communication dt. 1-9-1995 which was received by her on 8-9-1995 and by this communication for the first time the petitioner was informed that although she was eligible on the basis of merit, she was not admitted to the course as the result of B.Sc. IIIrd year examination had not been declared by that time.
(2.) A reply has also been filed to the rejoinder affidavit by the appellant-opposite party No. 2. It is denied that father of the petitioner ever met the Vice-Chancellor on 19-8-1995. It is also denied that information in respect of sending the mark-sheet was ever communicated to the appellant. The sealed envelope was never received by the Institute from the Lucknow University. It is further alleged that with respect to the case of Miss Ritu Agarwal from the Garhwal University it has to be mentioned that she appeared in the B.Sc. Part-III examination and she gave a written undertaking at the time of interview that she will submit her B.Sc. Part-III examination shortly. The Controller of Examination had received the confidential mark-sheet shortly. It is further alleged that at the time of interview, the petitioner was told that the mark-sheet was not submitted by her at that time. When this fact was disclosed to the petitioner, no request was made by the petitioner to the Interview Board nor any undertaking was given that the mark-sheet will be furnished in a sealed envelope by the Controller of Examinations.
(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 at length.;