- (1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Present petition has been filed for the relief of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent, Banaras Hindu University to admit the petitioner in M. A. Economics for the academic sessions 2006- 2007 under Employees quota.
(2.) IT brooks no dispute that the petitioner happens to be the ward of a permanent employee of the aforesaid University. According to relevant Rules, of Post Graduate Entrance Test 2006 contained in the Information Bulletin and Application Form, the wards of a permanent employee of B. H. U is entitled to admission to the extent of 5% of the total seats. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also Sri K. K. Rai, appearing for Banaras Hindu University and also considered the materials on record. Under the orders of this Court dated 21-7-2006, the learned Counsel for the B. H. U. was required to produce original O. M. R. Form of the petitioner as well as of Gunjan Goyal. The original O. M. R. forms aforesaid have been duly placed before the Court.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner filed certificate of her being the ward of permanent employee of B. H. U. alongwith original form. He further canvassed that in the O. M. R. form also, she mentioned herself to be ward of a permanent employee of the University and as such she is entitled to get admission under 5% quota of the total seats. He further canvassed that one of the candidates who had secured less marks than petitioner has already been admitted under the aforesaid quota. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the University contended that the petitioner did not furnish the required information in the specific columns meant for the wards of permanent employee of the B. H. U though it was candidly admitted that certificate to that effect had been filed alongwith the original form also. It was further contended that in O. M. R. form, the petitioner did mention herself as ward of permanent employee of the University. He lastly argued that in case there is any discrepancy in the original form that will prevail and the application is liable to be rejected on this very ground. Having considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that as the petitioner had already filed original certificate from B. H. U. indicating therein that she was the ward of permanent employee of the University alongwith original paper besides mentioning this fact in O. M. R. form which certificate forms part of the original form, she cannot be denied admission on the ground that she had not furnished required information in some columns of the original form though she had already filled in all required columns in the O. M. R. form and as such she is entitled to get benefits on account of her being the ward of permanent employee of the University. There is no denying of the fact that she had annexed registered acknowledgment with the original form and the O. M. R. Form the certificate of her being the ward of permanent employee of the University. Once there is quota for the wards of permanent employee and she fulfils the requisite qualification, the denial of admission merely on the ground that certain columns were not filled in by the petitioner, cannot be sustained.;