A.N. Varma, B.N. Misra, J. - (1.) The petitioner, an applicant for admission in the Janta Vaidik College, Baraut, Meerut, in the M. Sc. Agriculture (Agronomy) course for the Session 1986-87, is aggrieved by his non-admission to the said course.
(2.) He passed his B. Sc. Agriculture examination from J. N. College, Baraut, which is affiliated to the Meerut University, in the year 1986 and secured a first division with 62.3% marks, Thereafter he applied for admission to the aforesaid course. The Admission Committee constituted under Section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act considered the case of various applicants in the light of the rules of admission prescribed therefor. In the list which was finally published the petitioner's name did not find place. There were only 15 seats all of which were filled up by candidates who had secured higher marks at the B. Sc Agriculture examination then the petitioner. In December, 1986, however, one Rajendra Singh was admitted on the recommendation of the Admission Committee as will as the Vice-Chancellor of the University, even though he had secured only 52.3% marks at the B. Sc. Agriculture examination. According to the Admission Committee, he deserved admission as a Special case in view of the one year's Diploma course which he has done from Canterbury University, Newzeeland. It is not disputed by the respondents that the said Diploma Course has not yet been recognised as equivalent to B. Sc. Agriculture degree for the purpose of admission to the B. Sc. Agriculture course. The reason for admission of Rajendra Singh has been disclosed in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University which may be reproduced in extenso here "5. That the reply to the contents of paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is submitted that Shri Rajendra Singh was given admission in M. Sc. (Ag.) Part I, Agronomy because of the fact that Shri Rajendra Singh wanted admission in M. Sc (Ag.) Final on the basis that he had passed one year course of Agronomy from Canterbury University, Newzeeland but he not given admission in M. Sc. (Ag.) Final inasmuch as under the Ordinance of the University a candidate is required to complete his degree within a period of 4 years inasmuch Rajendra Singh had done his M. Sc. (Ag.) in 1981 and in this view of the fact he was not permitted to join M. Sc. (Ag.) Final. But however, as a special case his matter was referred to the Admission Committee and on the recommendation of the Admission Committee in consultation with the Convener, Board of Studies (who reported that the courses prescribed at Canterbury University, Newzeeland and the Meerut University for the courses prescribed in M. Sc. (Ag.) are identical. Shri Rajendra Singh was granted admission in M. Sc. (Ag.) Part I, Agronomy against an extra seat and any averment to the contrary is wrong and misleading and has been made only for the purposes of the case."
(3.) It is, therefore, established that insofar as the marks at the B. Sc. Agriculture were concerned the petitioner had undoubtedly much higher marks than Rajendra Singh. According to the rules for admission a true copy whereof his been annexed to the petition, the marks obtained at the B. Sc. Agriculture examination alone were relevant for admission to the M. Sc. Agriculture course. There is nothing in the rules which might have authorised the Admission Committee or even the University to admit students to M. Sc. Agriculture course on the basis of Diploma held by Rajendra Singh. However, owing to the facts disclosed in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit, he was granted admission as a special case. The fact remains that judge strictly on the basis of the norms statutorily prescribed under the U.P. State Universities Act the petitioner had undoubtedly a better claim for admission than Rajendra Singh. That being so, the petitioner has clearly been discriminated against. No valid ground has been disclosed by the respondents why and how Rajendra Singh was given a preferential treatment. It is indisputable that the admissions to these courses are to be granted strictly in accordance with by the norms prescribed under Section 28. If, therefore, for Rajendra Singh an extra seat was provided by the respondents to accommodate him, we see no reason why a similar treatment cannot be meted out to the petitioner as well.;