AZHAR HUSSAIN Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY JHANSI
LAWS(ALL)-1997-1-51
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on January 13,1997

AZHAR HUSSAIN Appellant
VERSUS
VICE CHANCELLOR BUNDELKHAND UNIVERSITY JHANSI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. The petitioner seeks writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to take admission of the petitioner in in M. B. A course of session 1995-97 of Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.
(2.) THE petitioner appeared for Master of Business Administration Course (in short M. B. A. ). He appeared in written test of this examination of Bundelkhan University, Jhansi. He was given Roll number 114001121. THE written test for the admission took place on 19th May, 1996. THE petitioner was successful in the. written test. He received letter dated 1-7-1996 directing him to appear on 13-7-1996 at Bundelkhand University premises for group discussion, personality test-cum-in-terview. In pursuance of the said letter dated 1-7-1996 the petitioner appeared in 396 the petitioner appt discussion/personalit the group discussion/personality test-cum-interview on 13-7-1996 at Bun delkhand University. He was declared successful and the result was published in local daily newspaper dated 5-8-1996. THEre were 40 seats of M. B. A. in Bundelkhand University. THE petitioner was at serial No. 26. On 26-8-1996 the petitioner is al leged to have received a telephonic call from his friend from Jhansi informing him that successful candidates of M. B. A. course are taking admission in the M. B. A. course and the petitioner should also seek admission. On 27-8-1996 the petitioner approached Heard and Bear of Business Administration, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, respondent No. 3, asking for his admission. The petitioner was informed that the admission was closed on 19th August, 1996. He was further informed that an intimation was given to him at the address given by him but as he did not turn up by 19th August, 1996, the candidate from the waiting list was taken and the petitioner was not entitled to be admitted in M. B. A. course. The only ground on which the petitioner has been deprived from being admitted to the admission in M. B. A. course was that he did not turn up by 19th August, 1996. The contention of the petitioner is that he was given the notice to appear in the written test and in the interview on the address 46/a, Ganesh Nagar, Muirabad Allahabad. The petitioner was intimated for seeking admission after the declara tion of the result on the address 46/2-A, Ganesh Nagar, Muirabad. As the address was incorrect, the Postman did not deliver the letter to the petitioner and it was returned. The petitioner had submitted the form and in the said form he had indi cated the address as 46/1-A, Muirabad, Allahabad. The petitioner did not receive any intimation from the respondents. He was not guilty of any fault.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3. In the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner had submitted the form for appearing in the test and in the said form the address was given as 46/2-A, the petitioner was rightly sent the intimation. He cannot now turn up and say that the intimation was wrongly given. A photostat copy of the said form has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said form indicates that the postal address has been given as 46/1-A, Ganesh Nagar, Muirabad, Allahabad. In any case, the digit '2' is not absolutely clear but it is clear that it is also not'2'. The petitioner had earlier been given the notice to appear in the written test on the address 46/1-A, Ganesh Nagar, Muirabad. Allahabad. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioner ap proached respondent No. 3 on 27th August, 1996. Respondent No. 3 intimated him that the admission was closed on 19th August, 1996. It is clear that by that date the class for M. B. A. course had not started. Respondents No. 3 should have verified the contention of the petitioner and taken necessary steps in the matter. The mistake was in the address which was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner was successful in the written test as well as the interview. There were 40 seats and the petitioner was at serial number 26. In these circumstances, respondent No. 3 should have permitted the petitioner to join the course.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.