AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—The petitioners have preferred the petitions for appropriate writ to declare that the action of respondents No. 3 to 8 is illegal for cancellation of the admission and the petitioners have also prayed to direct respondents to allow the petitioners to mark the presence in the presence sheet and practical lectures, etc.
Heard Mr. Savjani, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Ms.Patel, learned AGP for the State Authorities, Ms. Nanavati, learned Counsel for the University and Mr.Dave, learned Counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides, it appears that the grievance of the petitioners is that after they were granted admission, they had reported to the College and they had also attended the College. However, the College wrongly reported to the Joint Admission Committee that the students have not reported and, therefore, the admission came to be cancelled by the Joint Admission Committee and other students were admitted on their seats.
Whereas, it is the stand of the College Authority that the students did not fill up enrollment forms and fees and as per the learned AGP, the Joint Admission Committee has acted upon the report of the College for the allotment of the seats for admission.
It also appears that after the aforesaid cancellation of the admission, when the students pursued the matter, College has reported to the Joint Admission Committee to consider the eligible, meritorious students in additional quota of 10% for free seats, thereby the admission of the petitioners on the regular Government quota. No concrete action is taken by the Joint Admission Committee in this regard and it appears that at this stage the petitioners have approached this Court. The petitioner did make representation, but the same is not considered and, therefore, these petitions.
It appears to the Court that there is material produced on record by the petitioners to show that after the admissions were granted, the students petitioners herein, had reported to the College for pursuing the education. However, whether, in fact, the students tendered the fees or the College did not accept the same or there is any lapse on the part of the College or the Students, as the case may be, is the matter to be further investigated and inquired by the competent authority of the State Government. It also appears that if there is no lapse on the part of the students or no fault on the part of the students and there is power with the Joint Admission Committee to consider admission to two more students in addition to the intake capacity as per the guidelines issued by the AICTE, then eligible students can be considered for such free seats and the petitioners can be considered for payment seats in the Government quota. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, it appears that it would be just and proper if the direction is given to the authority to inquire and examine the record and thereafter to take appropriate decision in the larger interest of the education and also, keeping in view the career of the students, if the students are ultimately found not at fault.
Hence, the following directions shall meet with the ends of justice:
(a) The petitioners shall make detailed representation pointing out the facts contained in the petition together with the documentary record to respondent No. 3 on or before 4.2.2008.
(b) If such representation is made, the respondent No. 3 shall call for the remarks of the College Authorities and after hearing both the sides appropriate decision shall be taken as early as possible, preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation.
(c) It is made clear that while deciding the matter, the observations made by this Court in the present order shall be taken into consideration and the decision shall be taken in accordance with law.
The petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.