- (1.) In this petition, directions are sought to Shri Goswamy Ganesha Dutt Sanatan Dharam College, Chandigarh, for giving admission in B.Com. Part I to the petitioner.
(2.) According to the petitioner, advertisement (copy Annexure R-1) was issued inviting applications for B.Com. Part I and others for which the dates of normal admissions were from 12.7.1989 to 19.7.1989 and with late fee 20.7.1989 and 31.7.1989. According to the petitioner in para No. 3, he applied for B.Com. Part I in June, 1989, along with other students of the College, whereas according to the return filed by the Principal of the College, the petitioner never applied for being admitted in B.Com. Part I Class within time. He submitted his form after 19.7.1989 by which time all the 120 seats meant for general category candidates had been duly filled in. Since there was great rush of the applicants and the admissions were concluded by that time. Replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner but this averment in the written-statement as such has not been controverted. What has been stated in reply to para 3 is that the petitioner along with his father daily used to meet the Principal from 12.7.1989 to 19.7.1989 but every time he was told by the Principal either to give donation or to come after 19.7.1989 to see if any seat is available. Affidavit by way of rejoinder to the application has been filed by the Principal in which these allegations have been denied. It has been reiterated that "it is totally wrong that the petitioner had submitted his admission form before 19.7.1989." According to the said affidavit, admission in all the Colleges is made on "first come, first served" basis and there are no specific regulations made by the University for making admission on any other basis." The original admission form submitted by the petitioner was produced in this Court which did not bear any date to show that when it was submitted by the petitioner. However, according to the said affidavit of the Principal, the petitioner was advised to get himself admitted as casual student but he declined the said offer. It has been further stated therein that had the petitioner accepted the offer of being admitted as casual student, might be that he could have been accommodated but at present all the seats i.e. 120 original seats and 12 additional seats have been filled and no seat was available in the College at present.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that admission form was filled by the plaintiff much in time and it has been wrongly averred that it was filled after 19.7.1989. According to the learned counsel, seats were available in the College at the time when application form was submitted but the College was insisting for giving donation which the plaintiff failed to do and hence admission was refused to him. Thus argued the learned counsel, the action of the College was arbitrary and discriminatory. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the petitioner never submitted his application form within time, he could not be given admission since by the time his form was received, already the 120 seats had been filled up. Moreover, the extra 12 seats given by the University were filled by those students who had higher marks than the petitioner. In any case, argued the learned counsel, even now the petitioner could be accommodated as a casual student but not as regular student because there are no seats.;