^^- '?tl,,,^;'';lfp^ ^ ^. ^lt^^TK^W ^^l%^i^^NT ^Rfct. '7^r ^s^i^i^,. ^Til^^^, t^rray »SPWf8"^Sfl'% S^T^T ^^,( ^^^)- ?^w^ft^<ai^! DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. DHIREN HON'BLE MR, R.N, CRANDRAKAR, JJ Writ Petitioh (c) No,7l87/2008 Petjtloner (Petition under Articte ^ Suraj Pr| Aged 201 HQ'ldlbQdl Vs ftesoondents 1. Stat< Tech ? yhh^ ORA (iith| Dhirendra Mishra, J; Heard on I.A. No.l, applica|l Aliowed. Documents are -^ Al^'^K ^^^H^r^r DRA MISHRA & 26 of the Constitutlon of India) itap Singh, S/o Shri 6anesh Kumar Singh, years, R/o Mohhala-Amanala, 4 No. Datai, , Chirmiri, Distt. Konya (C.6.) of Chhattisgarh, Through birector, u'cai Education bepcirtment, Raipur (C&) isgcrh Suv/Gmi ViYskancind 'Ve>r-\^v\[^^\ <W.S«T»II US-U1 Unive("slty, Through Registrar, BhJiai, Distt. Durg (CG) 3. ChhG-ftisgarh Institute of Technotogy, through Princ|pai, Near Parpi Naia, 6.E. KoGd, ftajnandgQon (ce)| Present: Mr. Parag Kotecha <& Mr. ^ijay ^9arwal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Sumesh Bajaj, 60vt. Advo Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Mr, ft.R. Soni, Advocate for 7' ^ate for respondent No.l. ^dvocate for respondent No.2. rejspondent No.3. L ORDER May. 2009) ion for taking documents on record. on record. tdken ^S/95—11/2008—1,00,000. ^ii ^Hi^ wwir^^rai '7^ ';^FTT^P7, ^-al<-l^<o, I^Tray ^^&?...^S?.[.S.S:...... '^1^1^f^ (^i^sj^). ti|atly The short question involve^ petitioner, who was admitted Institute of Technology, Rajnan^gaon in AAechanical Engineering brancl'l Grievance of the petitione^ counseJin9 process, he was initi^liy No.S-Institute without brancH respondent No3 that he wouid branch. An endorsement to •tl Gliotment siip by the represent|] the money receipt the above fac|t petitioner was alfotted Appli^d Engineering branch contrary to time of admission by respondent On the last date of hearing, ChhattisgGrh, Raipur was direct^ of admission of the petitioner submit report. As per enquiry r^ Technical Education has submitfred and according to which the pet| '^R?^^ ^Rrfi ^ 'fe^ ij^F^R ^^t^i^i^T in this petition is whether the in respondent No3- Chhattisgarh i, was wronaiy denied admission by respondent No,3? is that he particlpated in the given admission in respondent however. he was assured bv &e aibtted AAechanical EnaineerinQ his effect was also made in the xtive of resDondent No.3. Even in was mentioned. Despite that the Electronic & Instrumentation the assurance given to him at the No.3. '=r ithe Director, Technical Education d to conduct enquiry in the matter |n respondent No,3 institution and ^port dated 4.5.2009 -rtie &irector, the report after due enquiry itioner's rank Jn P.E.T. ExQmination T—FS/95—1 1 /2008—1,00,000. ^IW^t^ B"^ ^si^Kn^, '^ft^PTg1, ^<ns^^< ..yl..%?.ZiIZ/.?..£ '^il^g ^^^ l^??w^ft^%?ir was 14799, whereas, rank .Mechanicai EnQineerina brancl-j 13942 and thus, respondent Engineering branch to the petil petitioner was asked to fII! Applied EieGtronics & student was mislead by the Gssured the student that he| Engineering branch, and the representative on the basis o1 the coilege. It haS been categ< the student was deceived by the time of admission that he branch. From the documents fited petitioner believing upon the respondent No.3 as aiso endor^ wili be albtted MechanicQl fts.78B50/- vide receipt of the aboye fee, the petitioner h« Instrijimentation rep^esentative ^ ^N^R ^^H^lt^T if the tast student admitred in in respondent No.S-institution is No.3 could not dlot Mechanical j'ioner. In these circumstances, the |jp Universit^ Enrolment Form for branch. However.. the ^esentative of respondent No.3, who woutd be odmitted in Mechanical said assurance was given by the information receiyed by her from |rical!y mentioned in the report that institution as he was not told at will not get Mechanicol Engineering the bj^ the petitioner it appears that the (jxssurance of the representative of ^ement in the admission s!ip that he branch, he paid tuition fee of A^nexure P-3. Apart from depositina is also wasted one vear. ^\ ^—FS/95—1 1 /2008—1,00,000. \^ '^^LW—JS ^^^^^ W^T 'aRT f^^ioh' ?T^T 3^T sh^Job W< iT ^KJIcft 7o? ^jl^ld^l, ^tll^^Ko, fa^1!<H^< ^_....*tf<t.^..ixzJ.£.. ^200 37!^?T 175f^ ( ^I^^M) ^TTW^ft^ 311^1 M e|)I<4Srl4S^ 'Wl^ff ^t fec^t I^I^R ^3t^H<3Rf?^ particuSar branch of a recogni^ by responaent No.S-Institute, respondent No.3 in its anxiety[ Therefore, we hope and truslj J prey to such machination of institute. Learned counsel for respon|jent No.3 submits that the institute did not make any promise to t^je petitioner and in fact, the promise was made by the representap-ive of the institute, who was not aufhorized to make such proi(iise. He further submits that the institute is ready to refund t^e tuition fee and other fees as also the originai testimonials depositt-ed by the petitioner in the college. We have heard learned ^ounse! for the parties. We have perused the report of thb; Director, Technical EducGtion; Chhattis9<irlh, Raipur< It is unfortunate that your|a student desirous of admission in a ;ed coilege was a victiin of deception He has suffered loss of his preciaous one year in th© process. F^eport of the Director, Technicat Education speaks volumes aboi|t the practice that was adopted by to admit one student in the coliege. that the State shat! look into the matter and do the needful so that the innocent students do not fall unscrupulous recognized technica! <nwir%w^ 'S^ ^{I^M^S, ^Tll^^Ko, [^<rsi^iy ^......,.....^..03.....?..^^ ^0 ^I^T. TI^F.( ^t^^) 31^1 ^I^W n. ^^?W ^ft^ ^T^l 's' Accordingly, we dispose respondent. No.3 to refunjd pefffloftfeS" for seeking admis^i testimonials deposited by within 15 days. Certifisd copy as per rui^s tljse Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge '^^^-^^T this writ petition with a direction to entsre amount deposited by the ;ion in its institution along with originaS petitioner- at the time of admission Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^{•u<^^^k ^u<^^ <s^^i<^M— FS/95—11/2008—1,00,000.