IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 746 of 2003 (M/S) Manisha Arora, Daughter of Dr. Balkrishna, House No. 163/3 Awas Vikas Janakpuri, Bareilly. …… Petitioner. Versus G.B.Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar through Registrar, Udham Singh Nagar and another. … Respondents. Sri D.S.Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondents-University. Date August 05, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard Sri D.S.Patni, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the respondents- University and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in the Ph.D. programme in free seat in Agriculture Chemicals in G.B.Pant University, Pantnagar in accordance with merit in the Entrance Examination. B. Issue any suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. C. Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner completed her M.Sc. (Agriculture Chemicals) in June 2003 from the Pantnagar University. The respondent-University issued advertisement and in pursuance to the advertisement for the Entrance Examination of Ph.D. programme on 26.2.2003, the petitioner had also applied for Ph.D. course within the stipulated time. The total number of seats for the Ph.D. programme was 4 and 2 out of which, two seats were for general category, one seat for S.C./S.T. and one seat was payment seat. The petitioner appeared in the Entrance Examination, which was conducted by the respondent-University. It has been stated in paragraph no. 10 of the memo of writ petition as under:- “10. That pursuant to the declaration of result on 20.6.2003 the counselling was held on 29.7.2003 and the petitioner participated in the said counselling. In the Counselling, to the utter surprise of the petitioner, she was told that as she had mentioned category No. 2100 in the application form and therefore benefits of bonafide students would not be extended to the petitioner. The petitioner tried to convince the Counselling Committee that she had mentioned category code No. 2100 on account of the fact that she was not residents of State of Uttaranchal and it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to mention the correct fact. The category code No. 1100 was applicable for the Uttaranchal General candidate and since in the form there was no separate category for the bonafide students therefore she mentioned the category code as 2100. In this regard it is stated here that Item No. 19 of the application form it was mentioned that “Have you been student of University? Yes O No. O. If yes give your I.D. Number i.e. 28802. In this view of the matter the respondents ought to have treated the petitioner in the category of Uttaranchal General in view of the Government Order dated 16.5.2002 and as she was at serial No. 2 in merit list, thus allotted her free seat for Ph.D. programme.” Thus, according to the petitioner, in the application form, the petitioner has already mentioned that she is a student of the University and had filled up her I.D. Number, i.e. 28802. The petitioner has also filed the Government Order dated 16-5-2002 as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition, wherein it has been provided that the students of the University shall be treated equivalent to the domicile of the Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand). Since the benefit of the said Government Order was not granted to the petitioner and she was not treated in the category of domicile of Uttarakhand, hence she was allotted the payment seat treating her student of other State. 3 In the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, it has not been denied that the petitioner was a student of Pant Nagar University and in paragraph no. 10, it was stated “it is stated here that the petitioner has herself mentioned in the application form for admission in Ph.D. Programme that she is not a bonafide resident of Uttaranchal. The petitioner has further opted the category code 2100, which is meant for other State candidate. Since the petitioner has not opted for Uttaranchal General Category (Code-1100), therefore, she was not admitted on free seat. During counselling, the petitioner was offered to get admission against payment seat, which was refused by the petitioner. It was not within the purview of the Admission Committee to declare her as the bonafide resident of Uttaranchal, which the petitioner has not opted. The all admissions have been given according to the instructions, given by State Government time to time.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended, in reply thereto, that the petitioner has rightly mentioned that she belonged to other State, but at the same time in the Item No. 19, “Have you been student of University?”, it was mentioned “yes” by the petitioner and I.D. Number was also filled up in the application form and there is no denial on the part of the respondents- University that the petitioner was not a student of the University. Because there was no separate code allotted in the application for those students who belonged to other State and were studying in the University for getting the benefit equivalent to the domicile of Uttaranchal. The only controversy to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the Government Order dated 16-5-2002, wherein it is provided that the benefit be given to the regular students of the University, as has been given to the domicile of Uttaranchal. 4 By a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition as well as counter affidavit filed by the respondent-University, it comes out that the petitioner had mentioned in the application form that she was a student of the University and I.D. Number was also disclosed. So far as the State is concerned, the information was rightly supplied that she belongs to other State, but the Code meant for other State candidate, i.e. 2100, was also mentioned. Since no code was provided in the application form to those students, who belonged to other State and who were student of the University, there was no occasion for the petitioner to fill up the Code. If the petitioner filled up a wrong code, on that premises, the petitioner could not be denied the benefit of the Government Order under reference. In Counter Affidavit nowhere it was denied that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the G.O. dated 16-5-2002. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has informed that the petitioner has already completed her Ph.D. course. In view of the discussion aforesaid, the petitioner shall be treated as a candidate against free seat. The petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the G.O. dated 16-5-2002 and being a student of the University she has to be treated equivalent to the domicile of the Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) for purpose of payment of fees. She had already completed her Ph.D. course. The interim order dated 14-8-2003 is made absolute. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 5 6 7