Ajay Rastogi, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that minimum age which was referred to by the respondents in the process which was initiated for holding Examination AIEEE -2007 with regard to B.Tech., is unreasonable and was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) PETITIONER 's date of birth as referred to in instant petition is 23.12.1992. After having qualified AIEEE examination for admission to B.Tech course, he was permitted to join B.Tech (1st year) in direct category while allowing respondent No. 3 -College where he deposited requisite fee on 23.08.2007 and after undergoing his regular studies, petitioner submitted his examination form which was sent to respondent No. 2. However, through Internet, petitioner came across of his candidature being rejected on the premise that he was under -age at the time of admission to B.Tech. Course and since examination was to commence from 31.01.2008, at this stage, approached this Court and vide interim order dt.22.01.2008 he was permitted to appear in the examination of B.Tech. (Part -I) and subsequently was allowed to appear in 2nd semester by University, as well and when he was not permitted to appear in B.Tech. (3rd Sem.) scheduled to commence from 15.01.2009, but was allowed vide order dt.13.01.2009. Counsel for petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that similar controversy as raised herein was considered while allowing CWP 2805/07 (Amit Srivastava v. State) by a coordinate Bench of this Court and taken note of in the order dt.04.07.2008 (CWP -508/08 -Tarun Rahul v. State) whereby fixing minimum age for admission to B.E./B.Tech course was held to be unjust and unconstitutional. It has also been brought to the notice that in prospectus for RPET -2008, as per para 3.2, requirement of minimum age has been waived off w.e.f. Year 2008; in such circumstances, Counsel submits that once impediment of minimum age stands waived off by respondents as per prospectus published in 2008, that may not come as impediment in case of petitioner from prosecuting his studies.
(3.) COUNSEL for respondents submits that the judgment on which counsel for petitioner placed reliance is pending before Division Bench.;