HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: b ~ Petitioner Respondents Hon’ ble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, & Hon’ ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ Writ Petition (C) No. 6477 of 2008 Ku. Shahina Begum, D/o. Mohd. Abdul Moquit, aged about 25 years, r/o. Farid Nagar, Quarter No.82, near ldgarh, P.O. Supela, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). Vs. 1. Chhattisgarh Technical Swami University Vivekanand through Registrar, North Park Avenue, Sector— 8, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). Choukse Engineering College through Director, Lal Khadan, Masturi Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG). (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India). Present: Shri Sanjay Patel, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, counsel for the respondent No.1. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent No.2. Per Dhi‘rendra Mishra, J. V\V \ Oral Order (Passed on 4—2-201 0) The petitioner has filed this petition and prayed for quashing of the order dated 10-10-2008 (Annexure/P—4) whereby she has been communicated that she is not having requisite qualification for admission to s M.Tech Course and has further prayed for direction to the respondent No.2 \ @ to allow the petitioner to attend M.Tech course and participate in the examination. 2) The short question involved in this petition is whether the petitioner w quaiitied to be admitted in M.Tech Course as per eligbiiity criter prcrid n Clause (3) of the Ordinance No.12 f Chhattisgar ami esbe i o h Sw Vivekanand Technicai University appliale or deree in Masters of cb f g Engineering/Technology (ME/M.Tch). e 3) The grievance of the petitioner is that in rpnse to the advertisemet of Annexure P/1, she aplied for admissi to M.Th n p on ec Course in the responent No.2/llege. She was provisionally amted t d Co dit o e said course on 4-8-08. However vide impugned counication ate 10-10-2008, he was informed that she does qualify for admission a she has not- obtaine minimum‘ 55% marks i the qualifying s d n examination. ”4) Learnd counsel appearing for the ptitiner submits that the e eo petitioner did B.Sc (Electronics) from the recognized univrity and obtained 55% marks and hus she fulfille the eligibilit criteria for t d y admission to M.Tec course per the ordinance o the Univesity. h as f r However, she has been efused admission on erroneous ground. r 5) On the other hand, hri Pankaj hrivastava, learned ounse S S cl apparing fo the respondent~No.2 submits that he petitioner was no e r t t .— eligible for admission to the said course as she did not possess the requisite qualification o euivalent examinaon in a branch in which se ’ r q ti h applied for admission. B.Sc (Electronics) is not equivalent to B.E./B.Tech h i s h course as B.E./B.Tec course s of four year duration wereas B.Sc (Electronics) is three years course. He further submitted that the petitioner as i ia as eso th 20 , mm dd s es has already taken back the original mark-sheets and other testimonials from the college after she was informed that she is not eligible for admission. 6) Sri Y.S. Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent h N1 as submits that from bare reading of Clause 3) of the relent o. lo ( va Ordinance of the Univrsity, it would be evident that the eligibity cteria e li ri for dmission to M.E/M.Tech course is prescribed as B.E./B.Tech or a i wi n equvalent examination th miimum 55% marks and thus, B.Sc' ( n qu am Electronics) canot be treated as eivalent exination of the B .E/B.Tech course. " 7) It is not in dispute that the petitioner is B.Sc (Electronics) with 55% marks. lt is also nt disputed that B.Sc (Electronics) is only the years o re course whereas B..ITech is four years ourse. Clause)’ of t EB. c (3 he relevant Ordiance of the University prescribes that “Every applicant for n admission to M.E/M.Tech/First semester should have passed B.E/B.Tech qu a % or eivalent examination in appropriate branch with t least 55 or g f equivalent marks/rades in the aggregate at inal year examination”. _ 8) Since the petitioner i only B.Sc (Eletrnics) which is only three . s co years course and she could not demonsate that the same is equivalent to tr the B.E./B.Tech Course, the respondents have rightly refused admission in M.E./M.Tec course t the petitioner. h o 9) In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly / l dismissed. No order as to costs. L_._ Sd/- Sd/- RoN. Chandrakar Dhirendra Mishra‘ t ‘ Judge Raju Judge