HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINTIAL (Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting) (Chapter VIII rule 32 (2)(b) Description of the case No.W.P. No. 923 year 2003 Rajeev Pratap Singh Versus Principal H.N.B. P.G. College Approved for reporting Not approved Dated of decision 24.9.2003 Initial of Judge HIGH COUT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 923 of 2003 Rajeev Pratap singh s/o S.K. Singh R/o Majula, District Pilibhit ….. Petitioner Versus 1. Principal H.N.B. Govt. P.G. College, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar 2. Registrar, Kumaon University, Nainital …Respondents Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate for the Petitioner Sri B.D. Upadhyay, Advocate for the respondents Dated: September 24, 2003 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon J. The present writ petition has been filed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner provisionally in M.A. 2nd year. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner has appeared in M.A. 1st year in 2002 as private student. He has secured 145 marks out of 400 which comes to 36.5% After passing M.A. 1st year the petitioner has sought admission in M.A. 2nd year. His admission was not accepted by the Admission committee on 28.7.2003. Order dated 28.7.2003 has been passed on the representation of the petitioner that if the petitioner has filed to obtain 40% marks in the improvement examination, he will not be entitled for admission. However, he was prayed that provisional admission in M.A. 2nd year may be provided to him subject to the condition of obtaining 40% marks in improvement examination. The grievance of the petitioner is that the prayer of the petition in the representation has not been considered and straight away the same has been rejected on the ground that the petition is not qualified for admission in M.A. 2nd year as he has not obtained 40% marks. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Regulation 2-4 of the College are important which provide condition for admission in M.A. 2nd year. Similarly regulation 2-9 provides improvement examination and during the course of improvement examination right has been given to the petitioner for admission provisionally. Regulation 2-4 and n2-9 are quoted below: 2-4 ,sls fo|kFkhZ ftUgksus Lukrd izFke@f}rh; o"kZ dh ijh{kk iz;ksxkRed of"k;ksa dks NksM+dj OfDrxr ijh{kkFkhZ ds :i esa mRrhZ.k dh gks rFkk ,sls vH;FkhZ ds Lukrd izFke o"kZ@f}rh; o"kZ dh ijh{kk esa 50% vad gksus ij lEcf/kr d{kk esa LFkku fjDr gksus dh n’kk esa f}rh;@r`rh; o"kZ esa esa izos’k fn;k tk ldrk gS blh izdkj dh O;oLFkk LukrdksRrj d{kkvksa esa f}rh; o"kZ ds izos’k ds fy, Hkh ykxw gksxhA 2-9 ijh{kkQy lq/kkj ijh{kk gsrq vgZ gksus okys vH;kFkhZ;ksa dks ;g lqfo/kk jgsxh fd izos’k fu;eksa ds vUrxZr rFkk fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds Hkhrj Lukrd Lrj esa f}rh; ,oa r`rh; o"kZ rFkk LukrdksRRj Lrj ij f}rh; o"kZ esa vufUre izos’k fyf[kr ?kks"k.kk i= ds vk/kkj ij fn;k tk ldsxkA It was brought to the notice of the Court that certain amendment has been made by which 40% has been mentioned as eligibility criteria for M.A. 2nd year which is quoted as under: fo'ofo|ky; ds i=akd ekU;rk@izos’k 2003@490 fnukad 21 tqykbZ 2003 }kjk izos'k fu;e 2-4 esa 50 izfr’kr vadksa dh ck/;rk dks f’kfFky dj 40 izfr’kr dj fn;k x;k gSA Sri B.D. Upadhyay appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 has stated that since the petitioner has failed to obtain 40% marks in M.A. 1st year, therefore, the respondents are not bound to admit him in M.A. 2nd year as regular student. Suffice it to state that the improvement is a part of human tendency and the same may be dealt with considering the career building of the students. However, both the parties have agreed that in case the petitioner files a fresh representation, in the light of the aforesaid provisions the same shall be disposed of sympathetically and also by assigning reasons. The petitioner, therefore, is permitted to make representation in accordance with the University regulations and the same shall be disposed of by respondent no. 2 within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) Dated: 24.9.2003 *Dhayni