- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. In this case, the petitioner had applied for admission in M. Sc. Chemistry under the Poorvanchal University, Jaunpur, in the year 1993. According to the petitioner, he was at the top of the list on the basis of merit but he was refused admission. He then applied for the next session, when again admission was refused to him. According to the peti tioner, though the persons far below the petitioner in merit have been given admission, but the petitioner's case has not been considered.
(2.) IN the counter-affidavit, a case has been made out that petitioner's admission will pollute the academic atmosphere of the College as has been reported by the Proctorial Board, and sufficient materials are there to come to such a finding. According to Mr. H. N. Tripathi, the Principal has the discretion to refuse admission to a student even if he is otherwise eligible. He contends that there is no malice or mala fide on the part of the INsti tution. It has been considered that the petitioner's presence as a student in the College would disturb the educational atmosphere. Mr. K. K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that since the petitioner is eligible on merit in 1993 and admission was refused illegally despite his eligibility, he is entitled to be admitted in the next session and, therefore even if his name does not appeat in the Select List. On the basis of his application made in 1994, he should have been admit ted. He further contends that the ground of refusal of admission as alleged in the counter-affidavit is merely an apprehension. There is no sufficient material to arrive at the said conclusion that the petitioner's presence would be undesirable. Mr. Roy relies on the judgment in the case of Sashi Kant Mai v. Vice-Chancellor, G. B. Pant Krishi Evam Pradyogic Vishwavidyalya. Pant Nagar, Nainital, 1982 U. P. LBEC 152 and contends that in the previous year when a student was eligible on the basis of merit to have admission, in that event, he should be admitted in the next course. The facts of the said case are completely distinguishable and cannot be applied in the present case. In the said case, though on the basis of merit, the student was eligible for admission but in the next session, the method having been changed to the extent that every one has to appear in the written test but the petitioner so having not qualified to appear in the written test, he was entitled to admission.
(3.) HE then relies on the decision in the case of Dr. Vinay Rampal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1983 SC 1199 and contends that in view of the said decision, the petitioner is as of right entitled to admission in the subsequent session. In the said case, it appears that the petitioner was found to be eligible for admission but his case was ignored. Therefore, it was held that the petitioner having been eligible for admission in the sub ject in the year 1981 according to the qualification and other requirements, set out in the advertisement the sands of time having run out which is inevitable in judicial process, the Court can grant the relief to such a person who has been refused admission unjustifiably. In the facts and cir cumstances of the present case, it is not a refusal of admission simpliciter despite eligibility. HEre admission has been refused on the basis of allega tions. Therefore, the principle laid down in the decision of Dr. Vinay Rampal, (supra) cannot be attracted. Now the question that has been raised fey Mr. Roy is that refusal cannot be based on an alleged misconduct of a student at the pre-admission stage. He could be expelled or subjected to disciplinary action or rusti cation on account of misconduct after the admission. In support of his such contention, he relies on the judgment in the case of Sameer Kumar Singh v. University of Gorakhpur, Gorakhpur, 1996 (1) UPLBEC 48. In the said case, a list was circulated by the University that the students mentioned in the said list shall not be granted admission. The said case deals with the admission in the Research Scholarship. There it has been held that such publication or circulation of list is wholly without the power of the admission Committee. There it was held further that the provision of admission does not contemplate refusal of admission on the ground that the Admission of a student is undesirable without any appropriate finding to that extent cannot be sustained. In the said case, the admission was denied only on the ground that his name was included in the said list without any finding as to whether that allegations made against him are correct. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, there are certain allegations by the proctorial Board which are Annexures 'ca-1' and 'ca-2' respectively which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that they might create a situation which is undesirable.;