- (1.) RESPONDENT No. 2-appellant, Uttar Pradesh Technical University, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.7.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50038 of 2007, has preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'writ petitioner') appeared in the State Entrance Examination-2007 conducted by the UP. Technical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') for admission in various streams including B. Tech. and B. Tech. (Ag.) streams. Having secured requisite marks, he was called for counselling and in the counselling, the streams which he offered, were Electronics and Communication Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. Choices offered by the writ petitioner were accepted and he was offered admission in Electronics and Communication Engineering. However, he was not admitted to the said stream on the ground that he was not eligible for admission in the said stream. Writ petitioner, then, requested for admission in B. Tech. (Ag.), but when nothing was done, he filed Writ Petition No. 43201 of 2007 before this Court. This Court by order dated 10th September, 2007 disposed off the writ petition giving liberty to the writ petitioner to file a representation before the University and consequential direction to the University to look into his grievance and take appropriate decision. In the light of the aforesaid order, the representation of the writ petitioner was considered by order dated 19th September, 2007 and the same was rejected on the ground that he had not given his option for admission in B. Tech. (Ag.), as such he was not entitled to be admitted to the said stream. Writ petitioner challenged the aforesaid order, which has given rise to the impugned order. The learned Judge by the impugned order, has directed for admission of the writ petitioner against any existing vacancy of 2007-2008 Batch for: B. Tech. (Ag.). While doing so, the learned Judge observed that the University ought to have informed the writ petitioner with regard to his entitlement for B. Tech. (Ag.) stream. Relevant portion of the order of the learned Judge in this regard reads as follows: "Undoubtedly, the petitioner was entitled for admission to B. Tech. (Agri.). Accordingly, in case the petitioner's entitlement for B. Tech. (Electronics and Communication Engineering) was refused, then the respondents should have informed him with regard to his entitlement for B. Tech. (Agri.) course. The candidates having lower merit, have been given admission in B. Tech. (Agri.) course, but the petitioner was not informed with regard to his entitlement for B. Tech. (Agri.) course during course of counselling. In view of the above, keeping in view the plight of the petitioner, it shall be appropriate that the respondents should consider the petitioner's case for admission against existing vacancy of 2007-2008 batch forthwith or he should be adjusted along with the next batch for B. Tech. (Agri.)." Mr. Neeraj Tiwari, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the stream to a candidate is allocated on the basis of choice given by him and it is not the obligation of the University to inform each of the candidates as to which stream he should offer. He points out that the information of options pertaining to the choice of stream is put on the website of the University, and a candidate is required to log on to the website and make his options accordingly.
(3.) MR . Pradeep Upadhyay, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, however, submits that the writ petitioner belongs to a poor class and under some confusion, he gave choices of Electronics and Communication Engineering, and Mechanical Engineering and it was obligatory on the part of the University to inform him that he was eligible for admission in B. Tech. (Ag.) stream. In support of the submission, Mr. Upadhyay placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and others, Al R 2004 SC 5043, and our attention has been drawn to the following passage of paragraph 8 of the said judgment, wherein placing reliance on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Charles K. Skaria and others v. Dr. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 SCC 752, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "24. It is notorious that this formalistic, ritualistic approach is unrealistic and is unwittingly traumatic, unjust and subversive of the purpose of the exercise. This way of viewing problems dehumanizes the administrative, judicial and even legislative processes in the wider perspective of law for man and not man for law. Much of hardship and harassment in administration flows from over-emphasis on the external rather than the essential. We think the Government and the selection committee rightly treated as directory (not mandatory) the mode of proving the holding of diplomas and as mandatory the actual possession of the diploma. In actual life, we know how exasperatingly dilatory it is to get copies of degrees, decrees and deeds, not to speak of other authenticated documents like mark-lists from universities, why, even bail orders from Courts and Government orders from public offices.......";