ASHOK KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges Statute 13 of the University of Jammu governing admission to various courses of study. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent to admit the petitioner in LL.B. Course of the University of Jammu. The petitioner argued his case in person and Mr. T.S.Thakur appeared for respondent -University.

(2.) IT is stated in the petition that the petitioner was selected in the Session of 1985 -86 and enrolled for M.A. Economic Course in N.S.S. Workers Reserve Category. It is further alleged in the petition that his admission to the Course of M.A. Economics was cancelled by Head of Deptt. under Statute 23 of the University Brochure, he, therefore, applied for admission to LL. B. Course for the session 1986 -87 and claimed admission under Reserve category for N.S.S. Worker. The respondent refused admission, to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not fall in preference under Statutes 13 and 9 of the University of Brochure. He has, therefore, attacked Statute 13 and prays that it be declared as unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and 19 (f) of the constitution of India and prays for direction by a writ of mandamus to the respondent -University to grant him admission in LL.B. Course.

(3.) RESPONDENT contested the petition and in the preliminary objections it has been pointed out that the petition is liable to be dismissed, because all the candidates admitted to LL.B. Course for the current session are not impleaded as a party respondent. It is also submitted that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the vires of the statute, because he has availed of the benefit of the same while seeking admission to the M.A. Economic Course and after having obtained the benefit of Reserve category once he cannot claim the said benefit twice for getting admission to LL.B. Course in the subsequent session for the second time. Reference is also made in the counter to the provisions contained in statute 9 and 10 for the purposes of regulating the preference in the Reserve Categories for post Graduate Course in the University. About the merits, it is stated that when on consideration of the second category for the admission to LL.B. Course, petitioner could not be given admission in the Reserve category, he was considered in the open merit for admission to the said course. It is pointed out that the last candidate admitted in the open merit category of the LL.B. Course in the session, in which the petitioner claimed admission secured 672 marks out of 1100; whereas the petitioner has secured only 510 out of 1100. It is, therefore, submitted by the respondent that even if the petitioner was to be considered in the first preference category, he would be much below to the last candidate admitted in terms of merit. About the cancellation of admission as alleged it is denied that the admission of the petitioner in M.A. Economic was cancelled in terms of statute 23. On the contrary it is pointed out that the petitioners case is clearly covered by statute 10 (ii) as he has become in -eligible to appear in the M.A. Economic examination on account of shortage in lectures. It is denied that any provisions of Article 14 or 19 of the constitution of India are violated.