- (1.) Petitioners Sonam Garg and Radha Goyal in writ petition no.2272/2009 and, Shweta Jwali and Geetanjali Maheshwari in writ petition no.2273/2009, have approached this court with prayer that respondent no.2 Rajasthan Technical University, Kota, (for short, 'respondent university') be directed to issue them permission letters/admission cards and allow them to appear in M.B.A. 1 st semester examination in February, 2009. Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for petitioners, has argued that all petitioners were regular students of respondent no.3 Biyani Institute of Science & Management, Jaipur (for short, 'respondent institution'); they were admitted against direct admission quota on the basis of their qualifying RMAT examination. It is argued that in the case of petitioners Sonam Garg and Radha Goyal, though their photographs and signatures were correctly shown on their admitcards, but in place of their names and fathers' names, names of Priyanka Mundra D/o Shri Dilip Kumar Mundra and Deepika Sharma D/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, respectively, were shown. In the case of petitioners Shweta Jwali and Geetanjali Maheshwari, their admit-cards were not at all issued.
(2.) Petitioners have regularly attended the classes of the course and respondent institution also forwarded a list of total 53 candidates including names of present four petitioners along-with examination-forms and other details for allowing them to appear in the examination. Respondent university has acted illegally in not issuing them admit-cards and not allowing them to appear in the examination. It is argued that due to some clerical mistake on the part of respondent university, admit-cards have been issued in wrong names or have been withheld. Petitioners, who are innocent students, cannot be made to suffer on account of mistake of others. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners appeared in MBA 1 st semester examination under interim order of this court dated 27.02.2009 and thereafter they appeared in all semesters of MBA examination. Petitioners cannot be made to suffer because of some differences between respondent university and respondent institution.
(3.) Shri A.K. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent university, opposed writ petitions and submitted that respondent institution adopted malpractice in sending names of petitioners; even though they were originally not admitted and if admitted, at very belated stage without timely notifying this fact to respondent university. Learned counsel submitted that examination forms of MBA 1 st semester as well as enrollment and eligibility forms for the session 2008-09 were received by respondent university with change of names of all students made by using white fluid on original names printed through computer on both forms of respondent university. Examination form no.803371, as per electronic record of respondent university, was issued in the name of one Deepika Sharma D/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma and sent to respondent institution. Such form was misused by respondent institution and her name was struck off by applying white fluid over name of Miss Deepika Sharma and name of Radha Goyal was overwritten. Similarly, examination form no.803390 submitted in the name of Sonam Garg was originally issued in the name of Priyanka Mundra D/o Shri Dilip Kumar Mundra. This form was also misused by respondent no.3 institution by striking off name of Priyanka Mundra and was used for Ms. Sonam Garg.;