C.M.No.12541-C of 2011 and C.M.No.598-C of 2011 in RSA No.205 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M.No.12541-C of 2011 and C.M.No.598-C of 2011 in RSA No.205 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2011 Amir Singh .....Appellant v. Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate for the applicant-appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.12541-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and order dated 26.9.2011 dismissing the appeal in default is recalled. Registry is directed to register the case at its original number. Application stands disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.598-C of 2011 In view of the facts mentioned in the application, delay of 130 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of accordingly. RSA No.205 of 2011 Present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 9.4.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Rohtak, dismissing appeal filed by present appellant-plaintiff against judgment and C.M.No.12541-C of 2011 and C.M.No.598-C of 2011 in RSA No.205 of 2011(O&M) -1- decree dated 12.8.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rohtak, vide which suit filed by appellant-plaintiff was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below. Briefly stated, appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for a decree for declaration to the effect that action of respondents-defendants in denying him the admission in LL.B three years (Evening) Course 2005 is illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff with consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing respondents to grant him admission in the said course on the basis of merit of the entrance examination. On notice being issued, respondents-defendants contested the suit filed by present appellant-plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that appellant-plaintiff was under an obligation to submit certificate from his employer and that rather he even did not fill up the requisite column nor submitted the requisite certificate and rather he mentioned the word `NA' in bold letters against the said column indicating that neither he was employed nor self-employed and hence, the admission was given to the next candidate. On appreciation of evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff. Appeal filed by the present appellant- plaintiff against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by learned District Judge, Rohtak. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant- plaintiff that later on an affidavit was submitted by appellant-plaintiff C.M.No.12541-C of 2011 and C.M.No.598-C of 2011 in RSA No.205 of 2011(O&M) -1- regarding the fact that he was self employed and hence by denying him admission, injustice has been caused to him. However, there is no force in the said plea of learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff. Admittedly, appellant-plaintiff himself mentioned the word `NA' in bold letters while filling up the column with regard to submission of certificate of employer. There is no dispute that the admission was applied by appellant-plaintiff for evening classes, which are meant for employees only. Even if it is taken that University is also admitting the candidates who are self employed and, however, the said fact was also not mentioned by the appellant in the admission form. Seat was offered to the next candidate. Moreover, admission was sought by appellant-plaintiff for the year 2005 and it was three years' course and the course was also completed in the year 2008. Hence, in view of these facts, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by learned Courts below in passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Finding recorded by learned courts below is fully justified by the evidence on record and is supported by cogent reasons. The said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of the evidence. Hence, the said finding does not warrant interference in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. 16.11.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge