ABHIRAM KULSHRESHTHA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR AGRA UNIVERSITY AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The petitioner appeared for entrance examination in M. B. A. (Part Time) course in September, 1993 and was found eligible for admission. Later it was revealed that the petitioner was graduate of the year 198$ and had not devoted three years course for B. A. nor had completed his one year Bridge Course. The petitioner had to approach this Court by a writ petition seeking relief that he could not be asked to complete the Bridge Course for admission to the M. B. A. (Part Time) Course. This Court was pleased to allow the writ petition by the order dated 25th February, 1994. Thereafter it is said that in pursuance of the High Court judgment the petitioner was interviewed and he was declared successful for admission. The petitioner claims to have deposited the semister fees and started attending the classes from 30th March, 1994 for the said examination. 27th and 29th March was holidays. The classes of first semister closed on 19th April, 1994 and from 20th April, 1994 preparation leave was declared. The petitioner has annexed the marks sheet. Annexure 7 to the writ petition which shows that the petitioner obtained 144 marks out 500. The requisite total marks being declared as passed was required minimum 290 marks. It is mentioned that in the bottom of the marks sheet itself it is mentioned that a candidate who ha obtained 40% marks in each papers (theory and internal assessment taken , ji j and separately and also 50% in aggregate will be declared to have passed the examination.

(2.) PERUSAL of marks in paper 1, 2, 3 and 4 shows that in the first paper he obtained 40%, second paper 55%, and third paper 10%, fourth paper 39%. The petitioner since failed to secure 40% marks in each paper. In third and fourth paper the marks obtained by him were below 40% and the total was less than 200. According to the note quoted- in the marks sheet itself he was declared failed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length I do not consider it a fit case in which any direction can be given to the respondents as claimed by the petitioner. 6, Shri Panakj Mittal has accepted notice for the respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 and is present in Court during the course of arguments. 7- The petition is dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed. .