IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.3970 of 2010. Judgment reserved on:17.8.2010. Date of Decision: 22.9.2010 Ipshita Thakur …Petitioner. Versus. National Institute of Technology and another …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?. Yes For the Petitioner(s): S/Sh.Ashok Sharma & Angrez Kapur, Advocates. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed that the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for admission to the M.Tech. (Energy Technology) course may be declared to be illegal and the respondents be directed to admit the petitioner in the said course. The main contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner who is fully eligible for admission to the M. Tech course applied for admission to the M.Tech (Energy Technology) course being run in the respondents National Institute of Technology, Hamirpur. Her candidature was never rejected and in fact she appeared for interview 2 on 25th June, 2010. The allegation of the petitioner is that in fact her name was recommended for admission but when she went to deposit the fees at that stage the fees were not accepted and her candidature rejected on the ground that she is not eligible since she has not studied certain subjects. Notice was issued and the respondents in reply have stated that in fact the candidature of the petitioner was not rejected on the grounds mentioned in the petition. According to the respondents as per the admission procedure all the short-listed candidates were required to produce certain documents in original at the time of counselling/ interview on 25.6.2010. According to the respondents since the petitioner had not cleared her final examination and had only appeared in the 8th term examination she was required to produce a certificate in original issued by the Principal/ Director of the Institute, where she was studying, in which it should have been stated that by June 30, 2010 the petitioner would be appearing for her final examination in all subjects requisite for obtaining the Bachelor Degree. No such certificate was filed. Further, according to the respondents, only 17 candidates appeared on the date of interview and though 25 posts were available only 10 candidates were found suitable for admission to the M.Tech (Energy Technology) course. According to the respondents in fact various seats are still lying vacant but the 3 Selection Committee did not find the other candidates including the petitioner fit for admission. The petitioner has submitted that there was no requirement of submitting any such certificate as set out by the respondents. The petitioner alleged that in fact when she accessed the web site of the respondents Institute to download the admission form there was no such condition. I have myself seen the web-site of the University and have found that there is a specific condition on the web site wherein candidates who were to appear in the final examination were required to bring additional documents. Condition No.9 in this behalf reads as follows: “9. Candidate appearing for final examinations must also bring the following additional documents: a) A certificate in original from the Principal/Director of their Institute stating that by June 30, 2010, the candidate will be appearing for final examination in all subjects required for obtaining their bachelor degree. b) A certificate from the Principal/Director certifying that the candidate has obtained an average of 60% marks or 6.75 CGPI (on ten point scale) based on latest available marks/grade.” The stand of the petitioner that this condition has been incorporated later in the web site cannot be accepted. There is an affidavit of a responsible officer i.e. the Deputy Registrar of the respondent-Institute to show that this condition formed part of the admission notice for all the Post Graduate programmes for the session 2010-2011. The petitioner was bound to submit such a certificate at 4 the time of counselling. It may also be pertinent to mention that the main purpose of imposing condition No.9 as set-out hereinabove appears to be that the candidate should have appeared in the final examination in all subjects latest by 30th June, 2010. The petitioner filed rejoinder but she has avoided to state as to whether she had in fact appeared in all the papers by 30th June, 2010 or not. Be that as it may a candidate is required to fulfil all the conditions mentioned in the admission notice. We are dealing here with a candidate seeking admission to the Post Graduate M.Tech course. These candidates cannot even come up with an excuse that they did not understand the conditions. The petitioner, not having submitted the certificates as required, could not have been considered for admission. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the petitioner’s case for admission should have been considered. According to the respondents the petitioner was not found suitable for admission to the M.Tech (Energy Technology) course. The stand of the petitioner is that the respondent is a Public Institute and since 15 seats are lying vacant, all eligible persons should have been granted admission. As pointed out above, 17 candidates appeared and only 10 were granted admission. 15 seats were kept vacant since seven of the candidates including the petitioner were found not suitable. Merely because a candidate fulfils the minimum eligibility requirement does not mean 5 that the Institute must give admission to such a person. The National Institute of Technology is an Institute of excellence and in such an Institute of higher learning only the experts can decide whether certain candidates are unfit to be admitted to a course even though they may fulfil the minimum eligibility requirements. It would have been better if reasons in this behalf had been given but the action of the respondent Institute cannot be said to be malafide since it was not only the petitioner but six other students also who were not found fit for admission to the course. This Court cannot interfere in academic matters and impose its will on the respondent-Institute. In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the petition which is rejected. No costs. September 22, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) PV Judge.