fCc) Na 6/ 9 m §m$ W 200% §WTW (llama) mmmanw ’ mmerwm $ my Writ Petition under Article 226 [227 of the Constitution of v India D.B Hon’ble Shri Dhirendn'a Mishra & —_—..__L__ Hon’ble Shri Sunil K‘umar Sinha, JJ 07.1 1.2008 M1". Raja Shanna, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Addl. Advocate General for the State. BV the instant petitio the petitioner is seeldng direction to the respondent authorities to C0ns1der his case for gent of admissmn 1n the engineerm college Briefly stated, case of the petitioner is that he appeared in the Pre Engineering Test (in short “PET”) examination held for the c§nic session 2008 in he month of May-June, 2008. On i Petitioner] : Vaibhav Gupta, S/o HariOm Gupta, Age 17 Proposed yrs., Through Next Friend Fathe Non-Applicant HariOm Gupta 60 yw Q/o Late R N Gupta Retd D‘>P 020 Sundei Nagar Ralpul Versus Respondents] 1 . State of Chhattisgarh, Ry-Secretary, Applicants and ‘ Téclmkai Education Deptt., D.K.S. Bhavan, Non-Applicanm Raipur. 2. Director Technical Education, Byron Bazaar, Raipur ’ msmnm am anw Mia? declaration of PET examina at 10478 rank. However, appear in the counseling as Class-XII in subject “Mathc revaluation, but result of re‘ in which he was declare counseling for admission xva Learned counsel for tl 1500 or more seats are 1K colleges, however, represen' P/5 was not considered. Chhattisgarh Engineering 2008 (for brief “the Rules; seats are vacant in the en; . filled through students 01 examination and for that i conducted by the concerned case, no such counseling, a been conducted by the instit Learned counsel for tl 1S not pressing this petition tion result, the petitioner was placed "he petitioner was not permitted to he failed in the main examination of :matics”. The petitioner applied for Ialuation was declared on 24.9.2008, d passed and by that time, last s already over. Le petitioner submits that even today 'ing vacant in different engineering ration of the petitioner of Annexure Referring to Clause 2.6.11 of the Graduate Course Admission Rules, 2008”), it was contended that Where aneering colleges, the same may be 1 the basis of merit in the PET rurpose, a final cotulseling is to be institutions. However, in the instant .s envisaged in the Rules, 2008, has utions. Le petitioner further submits that he at this stage, however, he prays for . w~F- cO/Vo- @ aqzoog snéarm (@1333) mmaQa amt 3 anéa WW Fran mar Emmi? WWWWWW $Wané¥r liberty to the petitioner to i Director Technical Educatic grievances raised in this p6 further directed t0 decide 1’ period as per the Rules, 20,08. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, appearing for the State Sub petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner. In View of above submissions of learned counsel for the is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner'to make a detailed representation before the Director Technical Education, ile a fresh representation before the n/respondent No. 2 raising all his tition and the above respondent be is representation within a specifled Learned Additional Advocate General mits that he has no objection if the parties; the instant petitior Raj pur/ respondent representation being made, decided by the competent authority on its own merits, as per the with law, Within a period of three Sd/- i’Sunil Kumar Sinhai Judge No. 2. On such the same shall be considered and /» Rules, 2008, in accordance weeks. ///V, Sdl - Dh‘r \ endra“mm all Judge —-\