SBCWP NO.7855/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7855/2007. Amit Kumar Soni Vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order : 11/1/2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Amit Kumar Soni, petitioner present in person. Shri A.K. Sharma for the University. **** BY THE COURT:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) The petitioner has filed this writ petition due to non-grant of admission in LL.M. 3) It has been contended that initially the respondents had not considered the petitioner as O.B.C. Candidate though not only he belongs to the said category and thus, entitled for the benefits of reservation in the quota meant for Diploma holders for which 40% seats are reserved in the self finance scheme of the LL.M. Course. It has further been contended that subsequently the SBCWP NO.7855/07. 2 respondents had realised their mistake and considered the petitioner in O.B.C. However, admission was not given on the ground that one candidate i.e. Ms.Preeti Chejara, respondent No.3 was having the same marks as was obtained by the petitioner and as she was having higher marks in LL.B. thus given priority. It is submitted by the petitioner that if two candidates are having equal marks then, the over all merits of the candidates should have been considered by the University and if the petitioner is yet to be found less meritorious, necessary admission can be denied and no grievance would have been raised by him. 4) The respondents in their reply submitted that looking to the facts that two candidates were having equal marks, the admission committee had taken a decision that the candidates having more marks in LL.B. should be given admission thus, the petitioner could not be accommodated as he was having less marks in LL.B. It is further submitted that it is being the administrative decision, same is not available for scrutiny by this court, more SBCWP NO.7855/07. 3 so, looking to the size fixed, petitioner cannot be accommodated. 5) I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. 6) It has come on record that two candidates were having the equal marks and out of two, one was given admission by the University based on the decision by the admission committee however, it is the admission committee alone was competent to take decision in this regard has not been shown; in any case, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be reasonable to direct the Vice Chancellor to take a decision at his instance to see as to whether the petitioner can additionally be accommodated in the LL.M. Course or not. While undertaking such exercise, it should be seen that no legal provision is infringed. If no legal provision is infringed then, Vice Chancellor is expected to exercise his wisdom and powers as exist in the ordinance and try to accommodate a student who wants to pursue his studies and looking to the SBCWP NO.7855/07. 4 fact that University is not having rules as to what treatment should be given to the candidate if two candidates are having equal numbers and over all merit of two students has not been taken into consideration. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that Vice Chancellor of the University will take a decision as indicated above within a week from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and while taking a decision, it is expected from the Vice Chancellor that a sympathetic consideration would be made. If any such decision is taken favourable to the petitioner, then, it would not be treated as a precedent. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil