AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Sri Namwar Singh Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ajay Bhanot Advocate on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3.
The petitioner who was admitted as a regular student in M.Com. two years degree course in Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth (University), Varanasi, in the academic year 2001-2002, had appeared in the examination of M.Com. Part-I examination conducted by the said University in the year 2002 and passed the said examination. Thereafter the petitioner did not seek admission in M.Com. Part-II and pursued his studies in other courses. In the year 2004 he again applied for admission as a regular student for M. Com. Part-II for the academic year 2004-2005. The University has refused admission to the petitioner in M.Com. Part-II relying upon the provisions of para 26 of the Ordinance as framed by the University u/s 51 of the State Universities Act, bearing the heading ''Pravesh Niyamavali''.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the decision of the University refusing admission to the petitioner is illegal and is based on misreading of the provisions of para 26 of the Ordinance.
On behalf of the University it is stated that the decision taken by the University is in accordance with para 26 of the said Ordinance and no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For the purposes of appreciating the controversy it is necessary to reproduce Para 26 of the said Ordinance, which reads as follows :
^^;fn dksbZ Nk= L�krdks�kj ikB~;�e ds izFke [k.M dh ijh{kk m�kh.kZ djds mlh �e esa izkjEHk vxys l= ds f}rh; [k.M esa izos''k ugha ysrk gS rks mls Hkfo"; esa iqu% izos''kkFkZ vkosnu djuk gksxk vkSj mls izos''k rHkh feysxk tc izFke [k.M esa mls v/;kfir ikB~;�e vFkok iz''u i= f}rh; [k.M esa gksA izfrcU/k ;g gS fd izos''k dh ;g lqfo/kk dsoy nks o"kZ rd gh izkIr gksxhA**
From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision it is apparently clear that a gap within two years is permitted for the student who has passed Part-I of Post Graduate Degree Course for being granted admission as a regular student in the final year of the same course.
From the facts as have been noticed hereinabove it is apparently clear that the petitioner after being successful in the academic session 2001-2002 did not seek admission in M.Com. Part II Course in the academic session 2002-2003 (examination held in the year 2003) and in the academic session 2003-2004 (examination held in the year 2004) and has now applied for being admitted after a gap of more than two years in M.Com. Part-II in the academic session 2004-2005. Since the admission applied for by the petitioner is beyond the maximum permissible period of two years, as contained in Para 26 of the Ordinance, the University authorities were justified in refusing admission to the petitioner. There is no illegality in the decision taken by the University.