POONAM SINGH CHETNA SINGH Vs. ALLAHABAD UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. In both the aforesaid petitions common questions of law and fact are involved, therefore, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9664 of 1993 is treated as the leading case.

(2.) BY means of this petition petitioner prays for a writ, order or direc tion in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22-2-1993, passed by the respondent No. 1 and to direct the respondents to permit her to continue her studies in B. A. Part-II of the academic Session 1992-93 as well as to permit her to reside in the Hostel, i. e. Priyadarshani Hostel of Allahabad University on pay ment of usual charges.

(3.) ON behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed con troverting the facts stated in the writ peti tion. It has been asserted that admissions in B. A. Part-I, B. Com. Part-I and B. Sc. Part-I were made in 1991-92 academic ses sion on the basis of entrance test. The result of the said test was declared but the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of the candidates qualified in the said test as she did not qualify for the admission. It has been stated that the girl students who have secured 503 and the boys who have secured computed marks up to 505 were admitted in B. A. Part-I in the aforesaid academic session. Since the petitioner secured only 412 computed marks she was not qualified to be admitted in the said class. It has also been asserted that on receipt of complaints regarding illegal admission on the basis of forged documents, a committee consisting of five members was constituted to enquire into the said complaints and to submit its report. The said committee issued notices to the students concerned who were al leged to have obtained fictitious admis sion. Petitioner was also issued a show cause notice but she did not appear before the enquiry committee. The enquiry com mittee thereafter submitted a report against the petitioner, which was placed before the admission committee. The ad mission committee accepted the report of the enquiry committee and the admission of the petitioner was thereafter cancelled. In view of the said facts it was asserted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was liable to be dismissed.