R.L. Anand, J. - (1.) ANIL Kumar petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Rule III -A of the Prospectus of the Department of Law, Kurukshetra University, Kumkshetra, for the session 2000 -20001 qua the confinement of the evening seats only to the regular employees of the government. According to the petitioner this clause in Rule III -A is violative of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that he was appointed as Math Master in the Department of Education, Haryana on ad hoc basis and is continuing as such since 4.3.1994. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1423 of 2000 along with one Parveen Kumar before the High Court for regularisation of his services and the same is pending. According to him, being a government employee under the State of Haryana he applied for admission for LL.B. (Professional) Evening Batch in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra for the session 2000 -2001. He passed the entrance examination. On 26.7.2000, list of the selected candidates was displayed on the notice board, but unfortunately his name was not there. The grouse of the petitioner is that the University has discriminated qua him by stating that since he was working on ad hoc basis, therefore, he was not entitled to the admission in LL.B. (Professional) course. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not eligible for admission because a candidate seeking admission to the Evening Shift was required to submit an employment certificate of minimum 2 years service experience and whole time regular employee of Government/Semi - Government/Autonomous Organisation/Recognised Educational Institution. Since the status of the petitioner was purely a stop - gap arrangement, therefore, he was not entitled to the admission as per the provisions of the prospectus.
(3.) I have heard Mr. AnuragGoel, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.;