1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2448/09 Om Prakash Sharma vs. The Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Date of order : 6/5/2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahesh Gupta for the petitioner. Shri A.K. Sharma with Shri V.K. Sharma ) for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondent-University of Rajasthan be directed to grant him admission in L.L.M Part-I General Category for academic session 2008-09. Shri Mahesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner was awarded degree of L.L.B in the year 2004. He thereafter obtained the Post Graduate Diploma in the subject of Criminology and Criminal Administration. There are two types of L.L.M. degrees; one in the General Category and other in Human Right Category. Petitioner was not granted admission in L.L.M Part-I General Category because last candidate who was admitted secured 355 marks in General Category whereas the petitioner 2 secured 350 marks in his diploma examination. Petitioner applied for revaluation of his marks in diploma in Criminology and Criminal Administration since the marks secured in diploma course are also taken into consideration for determination of merit. The result of revaluation was declared on 19.1.2009 and a revised mark sheet was issued to the petitioner on 2.2.2009. According to which, the petitioner also secured 355 marks out of 600 and thus equalled the merit of the candidate who was granted admission in L.L.M. Part-I General Category with 355 marks. The respondents illegally denied to grant admission to the petitioner even though seats are lying vacant. Petitioner had under these circumstances taken admission in L.L.M. Part-I, Human Right Category. Learned counsel relied on the communication dated 26.12.2008 sent to one Naresh Kumar under the provisions of Right to Information Act by which it is informed by the respondents that there were 86 seats in the previous academic year and for the 3 present year, the University has reduced the seats from 86 to 83 in L.L.M. Part-I. However, no reason has been assigned for reduction of seats. The petitioner has already taken admission in L.L.M., Human Right Category and regularly attending the classes, therefore, the respondents are only required to change his category. Learned counsel submitted that in the previous academic year also three students Ms. Mamta Sikarwal in the quota of Wards of University Employees and two others namely; Mohit Soni and Ankit Dixit were admitted in excess of permitted intake only on the premise that they secured equal percentage of marks with the last candidate admitted in that category. Action of the respondents is arbitrary inasmuch as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Shri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent-University opposed the writ petition and submitted that the merit of the petitioner at the time when admission process was finalised was determined on the basis of 350 marks which he had originally secured whereas the last 4 candidate in L.L.M. Part-I General Category was admitted with 355 marks. His percentage of marks was 59.17 which the petitioner did not possess. Petitioner had simultaneously applied for admission in L.L.M. Part-I (Human Rights & Values in Education) under Self Finance Scheme. There were total 83 sets in L.L.M. Part-I and all the seats are filled up and there is no vacant seat after the result of revaluation was declared. The petitioner approached the Head of the Department on 3.2.2009 and also served a notice for demand of justice. Reply to such notice was sent by letter dated 7.2.2009 informing that there was no seat lying vacant in so far as academic session 2008-09 is concerned and therefore petitioner could not be admitted at that late stage. It was contended that the three candidates who were in the previous year admitted on the analogy of equivalence of their marks with the last candidate admitted, were so granted admission at the initial stage itself and before finalisation of process of admission. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have equal marks at that 5 time and it is only subsequently that his marks had undergone a change and were increased due to revaluation. Learned counsel referred to Ordinance 157A(14) of the University Ordinance and argued that a candidate who become eligible to next higher class consequent upon improvement of his result on revaluation in the middle of session, can be considered eligible for admission to that class within 21 days from the date of issue of communication of revaluation result but not later than 31st December of same session. It is thus clear that after 31st December of each year, no candidate can be granted admission. The admission process was finalised on 18.10.2008 and result of revaluation was declared on 19.1.2009 and therefore according to the aforesaid Ordinance, the petitioner could not be granted admission, which even otherwise not possible because of non availability of the vacant seats. Upon consideration of the arguments and perusal of records, I find that this Court by its order dated 27.4.2009 required the respondents to clarify as to on what basis, 6 two candidates who secured equal marks with the candidate lastly admitted in L.L.M. Part-I, General Category were admitted and why for their purpose, two additional sets were created to increase the intake capacity. The respondents have clarified this position by submitting that that situation arose even before the finalisation of admission process and since at that time, those candidates were found to be having merit equal to the last candidates admitted, their case was considered and in order to maintain the parity, they were granted admission. But in the case of the petitioner, the respondents have given the additional reason for not considering his case for admission and have relied on Ordinance 157A(14) of the University Ordinance to say that no fresh admission after 31st December of the year could be granted even if marks are improved in the revaluation. Since the process of admission was finalised on 18.10.2008 and the result of the petitioner was declared on 19.1.2009, at this belated stage, when a substantial period has already gone by out of the first 7 year of L.L.M. study course, no direction in the nature of which the relief has been prayed for, can be issued in exercise of powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/