^^^^^ ^-^j\ M ^ '^ MIOH COURT OF CHHATTISOARH AT BILASPUR Coram: Petitioner HpntbleShriDhirendraMishra& Hon'bie Shri R.N. Chsndraksr. JJ Wrii Petiuon (Gt No.7142 of2010 Anjmesh Rajesh Govwdhan, D/o Shri Rajssh K. Govsrdhsn, agsd about 20 years, R/o HiG 5A, Deen Dayai Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, D'strist Ralpur (CG) Resiwndents Vs. 1. 2. 3. 4. State of Chhattisgarh Through Sscrster^, Dspartmsnt cf Technicaj Education, DKS Bhawan. Mantralaya, Raupur <CG) Dsrector, Directorate of Tschnica! Edueaiion, Byron Bazar, Raipur (CG) Chhattisgarh Swatni Vivekanand Technical University, through ite Regjstrar, Bhi'as (CQ) Disha instiiute of Management & Technology, through its Pnncipal, Raipur (CG) Present: Smt Fouzia Mirza and Shri Kasif Shakeel, counsei for the petittoner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Advocate G@n©rai for tho respondenis No.1 &2. Shri P.8. Koshy, counse! for respondent No.3. oBAi,^RetB (10:^.2010) The petitioner is pursutng hjs studies of 3rd Semester of Bachetor or Engineering Course with ttte respondent No.4. He was eariler pursuing his studies at l^lhi Techru^ogieal University and has appeared in the 2nd Semester of B.E. Course in Environmental Engineering. 2. The grievance of the petjtiwier is that the University has denied him enrolment in the University on the ground that ttie tetter dispatehed from the respondent No.4 for enrolment <rf the petittoner in the University was received by it on 03.11.2010, whereas the last date for transfer of B,E, 3ra Semester was on 23,10.2010, The aforesajd communtcation has been dispatohed to ttie petitioner on 25.11.2010 by the University. 1 \.^^^y 3. Learned eounsel for the Defitioner submjts that University has denied the petltioner's enrollment in the University on the ground that the letter of the petitloner's Institution fbr his enrolment in the Universtty was received on 03.11.2010, whereas the last date for tran^er of B-3 Semester was 23.10.2010 vide Annexure P-7. Even the afor^aid communication has been forwarded to the Institution on 25.11.2010. The above reason for refusal of enrollment is apparedtly enoneous and incorrect as would be evident from the document of Annexure P-6, whereby petitioner's enrolment form has been received on 29.09.2010 sent by the respondent No.4 and the same has been received by (he University on 30.09.2010. 4. Shri Koshy, tearned counsel for respondent No.3 sutomits thart though ttie comniunication of Annexure P-©from the respondent No.4 was received on 30.09.2010, however, the petttioner couid not be enrojted in t»eUniversity on tti@ ground that he hact not cteared hte 2 Semester examilnatton from the Delhi TwhnologJcal University, Delhi and he was seeking enrolment as a stuctent of 3ro Sem^ter m the respondent No.4-lnstitution afflliated wtth the Univereity. 5. Heard tearned counsel for the ^rties. 6. From perusal of Annexure P-6 and P-7, it is ctear that the reasons assigned for not accepting the transfer and enrollment form appear to be erroneous. 7. In these circumstances, the instant petttion te disproed of with a direction to the University to considw the case of the p^itioner tor enrollment afresh and not to deny enrotlmwit on the groynd stated in Annexure P-7 only. Awordingly, we direct the respondent/University to take fresh decision In the matter of enrollment of the petttioner in the University and pass a reasoned order. This exercise should be completed within a period of one week from the date of productton of copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not made any observatton with regard to the merite ofthe ease. C.C.today. —— — Priya Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge