c<? l^2— SiNSLf BENCK IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR W.P.t^No. ^lcC? of 2010 rariTioNER ^ Nikhlesh Prasad Baghel, S/o Shri Ravindra Kumar Baghel, aged about 26 years, R/o C/o Janak Ram Verma, Near Water Tank, Dangania, District-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS \^ ^•v ^^ss^ .4^ RESPONDENTS <^?< .^ ,^4^'-- ^>'y-y\/^}" ^y^' ;1. State of Chhattisgarh : Through Secretary, Departnient of Technical Education, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director, Directorate ofTechnical Education, Byron Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Chhattisgarh Swaini Vivekanand Technical University, through the Registrar, Sector-8, Bhilai, District-Durg (C.G.) 4. Raipur Institute of Technology, through the Principal, Chhatauna, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 No. 6103 of 2010 PETITIONER : Nildilesh Prasad Baghel. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel I.awyer for the State/respondent No. 1 and 2. QRDER(QRAL) (Passed on 23rd day of October, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ/direction to the respondents commanding them to grant admission to the petitioner in M.B.A course for the academic session 2010-2011. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in the aptitude test conducted for admission to the M.B.A. course. The petitioner was admitted in the respondent-College affiliated to the respondent No. 3-University and the petitioner started attending the classes from 02.08.2010. However, all of a sudden on 19.10.2010, the petitioner was informed by the respondent college that he cannot prosecute his studies and his application form for admission was returned to him^ without refunding the admission fee, on the ground that the University has rejected the admission form of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has secured 44.22% in graduation, ^../" whereas 45% minimum marks were required in graduation as per the Ordinance No. 19 ofthe respondent-University, afiter granting relaxation to the OBC category candidate. Shri Sharma further submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions ofthe Article 14, 16 and 21 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Against the aforesaid illegal action of the respondent authorities, the petitioner has approached them^ inspite of the said fact, they have not taken any action. The respondent-College granted admission to the petitioner for M.B.A course after realizing requisite fee and admission form by exercising their power vested in it. Therefore, after granting admission, they cannot throw out the petitioner after two months of his admission. Due to aforesaid action of the respondent College, the career of the petitioner will be ruined. There is no dispute that the petitioner did not have the minimum qualifying marks i.e. 45% as required in graduation, as per Ordinance No. 19 of the University. It is also not a case of rounding offthe marks as it is not more than 44.5%. Thus, for want of minimum qualifying marks^ the petitioner by virtue of filing application and depositing fee, does not acquire any right for continuation in the M:.B.A. course. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that he was admitted to the course and has paid requisite fee, and as such, he may be permitted to continue, has no merit. The High Court cannot direct to relax the minimum qualifying marks and admit a student on the above stated grounds. The petitioner has acquired no right on the basis of his earlier Amit provisional admission, which is contrary to the rules prescribed by the University. No provision of law has been shown wherein relaxation in minimum qualification can be granted. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court cannot direct the Govemment to consider the case for relaxation in qualification when there is no provision for the same (See : Himanchal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Another \ In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge ' (2010) 6 SCC 759