CWP No. 13489 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.13489 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.8.08 Ankit Gupta ...Petitioner Versus Thapar University, Patiala and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. G.S. Lalli, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajan Gupta, J. In the present case, the petitioner was an aspirant for admission to Bachelor of Engineering 2nd Year in Computer Science. According to the petitioner, he had completed his diploma course in Computer Science from Government Polytechnic, Jhajjar (Haryana) in the year 2007-2008. He, thus, became eligible for direct admission to 2nd year course B.E. under the Lateral Entry Admission. A common entrance test was held for this purpose by the respondent University, namely Thapar University, Patiala and the petitioner's rank in the same was 66. Since the petitioner is from Haryana, he was to be considered in the quota reserved for students from other States and his rank in the same was 7th. The petitioner has further stated that seats allocated to CWP No. 13489 of 2008 2 students from other States in the stream of computer science by the respondent University were eight. The petitioner's rank being 7th, he would naturally get admission to the said stream. First counselling for this course was held on 17th July, 2008 and second counselling was held on 26th July, 2008. In the second counselling, all the certificates of the petitioner were found in order but Haryana Technical Education Board had not declared the result in one subject. The petitioner claims that in other four subjects his merit and rank were found in order. The petitioner has alleged that he requested the University authorities to allow him some more time to produce a provisional certificate from the Haryana Technical Education Board but was not granted this opportunity. The petitioner has also alleged that this opportunity was granted to other candidates who also did not possess the result to be declared by the Haryana Technical Education Board on the said date. According to the petitioner, candidates below him i.e. rank 8 onwards were given seven days time to produce the provisional certificate. The petitioner was, thus, denied admission in the said course. The petitioner later moved replication wherein he has reiterated that other students below in rank to him, whose result had also not been declared by the Haryana Technical Education Board, were given time to produce provisional certificates, but he was not granted this benefit. In the said application, the petitioner has given the names of four candidates, who according to him, were given time to produce the CWP No. 13489 of 2008 3 provisional certificates, which chance was denied to him. In reply the respondents have stated that as per clause 1.6 of the Prospectus, under the Lateral Entry Admission to the second year Undergraduate Programme, a candidate who was to appear and whose result was awaited in the qualifying examination, was allowed provisionally to appear in the entrance examination. However, it was made clear that if the candidates failed to submit proof of passing the qualifying examination at the time of counselling, they would not be considered. Clause 1.6 reads thus: “1.6: Candidates due to appear in the qualifying examination are also eligible to appear in the Entrance Examination. Such candidates will be placed provisionally in the merit list. They will not be considered for admission if they fail to submit proof of passing the qualifying examination at the time of counselling.” The respondents have clearly denied the allegation of the petitioner that other students were granted seven days time to produce provisional certificates. According to the stand of the respondents, the candidates next to the petitioner in the merit-list was one Aastha Thakur, who appeared for counselling on 26th July, 2008 and duly appended all her certificates including her provisional certificate-cum-result of the qualifying examination. The respondents have attached the said certificate as Annexure R-1 to the reply. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of clause 1.6 of the Prospectus, reproduced above, CWP No. 13489 of 2008 4 clearly shows that the candidates were required to produce the result of the qualifying examination at the time of counselling, failing which they would not be considered. The petitioner admits that he was not able to produce the result of his qualifying examination when he appeared for counselling on 26th July, 2008. Thus, we find nothing wrong in the action of the respondent University in not considering the petitioner for admission to the course in question on 26th July, 2008. As regards the claim of the petitioner that candidates below him i.e. rank 8 onwards were given seven days time to produce the provisional certificate, the petitioner has not been able to produce any record in that respect. The respondents, however, have produced Annexure R-1 in respect of a candidate who got her diploma certificate from Himachal Pradesh. A perusal of Annexure R-1 shows that Aastha Thakur, who was next candidate immediately below the petitioner, had got her provisional certificate of Diploma in Computer Engineering from Himachal Pradesh Takniki Shiksha Board, Dharamshala issued on 22nd July, 2008. She, thus, produced the same on the day of counselling and got the admission. The petitioner has, therefore, not been able to substantiate his claim that other students were granted a week's time by the University for the purpose of producing the provisional certificate. However, during the course of hearing, we put a pointed query to the counsel for the respondents whether the petitioner, who has CWP No. 13489 of 2008 5 now got the provisional result/certificate of his diploma from Haryana Technical Education Board, otherwise qualifies for admission according to his merit. To this, the reply of the counsel was in affirmative. In view of the fact that the petitioner otherwise qualifies for admission according to his merit and non-declaration of result by the Haryana Technical Education Board was beyond his control, we direct the respondent University to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically and grant him admission if it is possible to do so without displacing any other meritorious candidate. The writ petition is disposed of in these termsz. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE August 20, 2008 'rajpal'