- (1.) AJAY Kumar Srivastava the respondent appeared in person. This is an appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge dated 03. 03. 2009, disposing of the writ petition filed by the respondent Ajay Kr. Srivastava with the direction that the Gorakhpur University may declare the result of the examination of the writ petitioner in M. Sc. Physics First Year, within four weeks from the date of the order. It has been further directed that in the event, the petitioner passes his examination, he would be given admission by the College for the academic Session 2009-10. On account of misrepresentation made by the appellant's institution and loss of two years, which the petitioner has undergone while pursuing the litigation, costs of Rs. One Lac upon the College to be paid to the writ petitioner have been imposed.
(2.) THE appellant had got published an advertisement as a news item on 29. 08. 2006 in the Daily Hindi News Paper, Dainik Jagran inviting application for admission in M. Sc. First Year in Physics and Maths. The writ petitioner-respondent, in this appeal applied for admission in the M. Sc. First Year and the same was granted by the college. The writ petitioner also deposited the admission fees amounting to Rs. Fifteen Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty. The writ petitioner also attended classes and in January, 2007 he was also required to deposit the examination form duly filled in as the examination of the First Year was to commence on 4. 6. 2007. According to the writ petitioner the College authorities informed him on 18. 05. 2007 that he cannot appear in the examination since the college was not granted affiliation in M. Sc. Physics by the University and offered to refund the fees paid by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the College was not granted affiliation to the Gorakhpur University and that the act of the College in getting the advertisement published was therefore improper. It is also not in dispute that the writ petitioner suffered loss in his academic career of about two years. The learned Single Judge has found that the appellant played fraud by inviting applications for admission when infact the College was not affiliated.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant Sri Shyamal Narain, submitted that infact the College did not play any fraud and that the advertisement/news item was got published under the bonafide belief that the affiliation was due to be granted. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the inspection report of the University in which the University found the claim of the appellant for recognition for affiliation in order. Reliance is also placed upon a letter dated 25. 8. 2006 of the Registrar of the University to the State Government recommending grant of affiliation. It is submitted that the collage was expecting the grant of affiliation and hence published the advertisement on 29. 8. 2006 after the letter dated 25. 08. 2006. It is also stated that subsequently on account of some technical objection the affiliation was not granted for that year but it was subsequently granted for the year 2008. He submits that although in these circumstances the act of the appellant may have been improper but no fraud was intended to be played. It is however, not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the writ petitioner-respondent did suffer a loss in his academic career and learned counsel submitted that the college has no objection in paying the sum of Rs. One Lac as costs to the writ petitioner to compensate him for the loss. It is stated that the costs will be paid to the writ petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the writ petitioner-respondent before the College by cross Demand Draft as directed by the learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, 1 it is not necessary to go into the merits of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding fraud as the writ petitioner is entitled to payment of costs as he suffered loss in academic career, and the payment of Rs. One Lac to the respondent as cost is proper. In any case, It is clear that the act of the Collage was improper. We do not find any ground for interference with the directions (1) and (2) in the operative portion of the order of the learned Single Judge. We dispose of this appeal with the direction that the costs of Rs. One Lac will be paid to the writ petitioner by cross demand draft within a period of three weeks from the date a copy of this order is filed before the Manager of the appellant no. 1.;