- (1.) S. P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel representing the respondents.
(2.) PERUSED the record. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus requiring the respon dents to grant them admission in M. Sc. Pre vious (Physics) Course 1996-97. The respondent-University while entertaining the applications of the petitioners. "or ad mission to the course of study in question had made it clear that the candidates ap pearing in the final year of the qualifying examination could appear in the entrance test but in case such a candidates fails to submit the proof of minimum eligibility re quirement on or before 8th August, 1996 his claim for admission to the concerned Post-Graduate courses shall not be considered. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they did not satisfy the requisite mini mum eligibility criteria on or before 8th of August, 1996 as the result of final year of the qualifying examination in which they had appeared from Purvanchal University had not been declared. A copy of the letter of the Controller of Examinations dated 23rd August, 1996 has been produced which indi cates that the cut-off date which was initially 8th of August, 1996 as indicated in the above form supplied to the petitioners was ex tended upto 4th September, 1996. The Pur vanchal University, however, did not declare the result of the final year of the qualifying examination in which the petitioners had appeared even by the extended cut-off date. As a consequence, the petitioners have been denied admission on the ground that they did not possess the requisite minimum eligibility qualification by the cut-off date.
(3.) IT may be noticed that its decision in the case of Amit Kumar Srivastava and others v. Kashi Vidyapith, Varanasi and another, 1996 ALJ 711, this Court had emphasized that a student who has not com pleted the prescribed course of study spread over a period specified in the relevant statutes or the ordinance should not be per mitted to appear at the final examination as he cannot be deemed to be eligible for that if the legislative policy is that before appear ing at the final examination the candidate must pursue the prescribed course of studies spread over for a certain period and that it is not permissible for the University to squeeze that period entirely ignoring the legislative intent and the purpose of spread ing over of a particular course of studies for a particular period. A course of study which under the statute is required to be squeezed or reduced to lesser period by any ad ministrative action contrary to the provision having statutory force and the ex plicit legislative intent in insisting upon pursuing of a course of study spread over a particular period. In the present case the purpose of fixing the cut-off date for the purpose of admission clearly was to ensure that the prescribed period of studies for the M. Sc. Previous (Physics) Course 1996-97 is not adversely affected.;