K.D.SHARMA, J. - (1.) A notice was issued to the non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 to show cause why this petition be not admitted. Mr. S.L Mardia, Additional Government Advocate appeared on behalf of non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and filed a written reply to the writ petition. The non -petitioner No 5 refused to accept the notice. Hence, the notice was deemed to have been served on him. No body appeared on behalf of non -petitioner No 5.
(2.) HEARD Mr. M.R. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.L. Mardia, Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of non -petitioners Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner passed Higher Secondary Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer, in the year 1978. He applied to the Principal, Polytechnic College, Jodhpur for admission to Three Years' Diploma Course and was called for interview at the Polytechnic College, Jodhpur, on August 14, 1978, at 8a.m. along with the original testimonials and the prescribed fees. It is alleged in the writ -petition that the interviews started at is a.m. on August 14, 1978, and the petitioner was present there in the main hall upto 5.45 p.m. In the first instance, 107 students were admitted to the aforesaid Diploma course on the basis of merits but as the total number of seats was 144, the interview for the remaining 37 seats started and 28 students were selected for admission amongst those who were present at that time. According to the petitioner, the basic; criterion for admission, i.e. merits was ignored and students having lesser marks were given preference to students who had obtained higher marks in the Higher Secondary Examination. According to the petitioner, he had a better claim for admission than that of non -petitioner No. 5 because the petitioner secured 59.3% marks in the Higher Secondary Examination while non petitioner No. 5 could obtain about 53% marks only as an ex -student. It was further urged in the writ petition that when students having obtained 59% marks in the Higher Secondary Examination were called (or interview, the petitioner raised his hand and tried to enter the hall but he was not allowed entrance, with the result that the petitioner could not get admission in the second phase of interview also and 28 other students were selected for admission. After selecting 135 students for admission, interviews for selection of the remaining 9 seats started and 10 candidates including the petitioner were selected for admission on the basis of merits. After the selection a list of 10 candidates was prepared and the petitioner and 9 others were given the prescribed form for the purpose of enrolment. The form was filled by the petitioner in his own handwriting and handed over to non -petitioners Nos. 2 to 4. The petitioner and 9 others were prepared to deposit their fees, but they could not do so on account of some miscreants having enfred the hall and become violent However, the petitioner and 9 students were assured by non -petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 that their fees would be accepted after some time. The petitioner and 9 other students later on went to non -petitioner No. 3 and requested him to accept their fees but the latter refused to allow them to have their fees deposited. The petitioner thereafter met non petitioner No. 3 many a time and requested him for permission to pursue his studies but the non -petitioner No. 3 refused to allow him to sit in the class. Later on, the non petitioner No. 3 made an unsuccessful attempt to fill up 37 seats on August 30, 1978 by stating that on August 14, 1978 only students were selected for admission. Hence, the petitioner had no course open but to file a wait -petition in this Court for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to the non -petitioners Nos. 2 to 4 to accept the fees of the petitioner and to allow him to pursue his studies and to quash the admission of the non -petitioner No. 5
(3.) IN the written -reply filed by Shri S.L. Mardia Additional Government Advocate on behalf of non petitioners Nos. 1 to 4, it was stated that 107 students only were admitted on the Three Years' Diploma Course in the morning August 14, 1973 on the basis of merits and the admissions were closed at 12 in the noon the very day. However, 13 other candidates presented themselves for admission in the afternoon of August 14, 1978 Their particulars were verified but they were not considered for admission without intimation to all the candidates who had obtained 193 or more than 193 marks in the Higher Secondary Examination and who had missed an opportunity for the admission in the morning of 14, 1978. It was further denied that 10 students including the petitioner were selected for admission on the basis of merits of August 14, 1978 and that the petitioner was present on August 14, 1973 during the the period between 8 am and 5 45 p m. As regards non -petitioner No. 5, it was alleged that he was not admitted but was permitted to attend the classes in pursuance of an order of the High Court till the disposal of his writ -petition. In short, the contention of the non -petitioners is that the regular classes have commenced from August 16, 1978 and no new admission is possible now and the petitioner was never selected for admission August 14, 1978.;