AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.S.A. Swamy, J. 1. The facts of this case arc not in dispute. The petitioner seemed to have appeared for entrance test to MBA course for the academic year 1999-2000 of the respondent No.2-University after writing the qualifying examination i.e., B.Sc. In the entrance test the petitioner seemed to have secured rank of 545. But as per the results published by the respondents for the qualifying examination she was shown as failed in Mathematics Paper-Ill in B.Sc. Final year. Thereafter she applied for revaluation, and to the surprise of this Court, in the revaluation, she not only passed in the above subject, but also secured 70% aggregate marks in the B.Sc. final year examination. It is also not in dispute that on 16-09-1999, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents along with a copy of the Memorandum of marks issued by the University after revaluation requesting allotment of seat in MBA course. On 27-09-1999 when the petitioner approached the Respondents/Convenor, the Convenor seemed to have observed that as she passed in re-valuation, her case cannot be considered for allotment of seat in counselling.
The observation of the Convenor is atrocious and if such an observation is made, the Professor cannot deserved to be called as Professor. Revaluation is meant to correct the mistakes committed by the Valuation Officer and this opportunity was given to the applicant to seek remedy for the injustice done to him/her.
In the instant case, the petitioner having come out successfully in the revaluation, cannot be denied of admission by the respondents on the ground that she passed the examination in revaluation.
This Court would like to place on record that this is the third case that came to the notice of this Court where the students career are sought to be ruined by the Valuation Officers without following the principles of valuation and it is high time that the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University, is expected to take remedial measures to see that the careers of the bright students are not spoiled at the whims and fancies of the valuation officers and if the respondent University comes to the adverse notice of the Court again, the Court will not hesitate to issue contempt proceedings against the Vice-Chancellor concerned for not taking the remedial measures as stated supra.
In the light of the view taken by me, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of a seat in MBA course as per the rank obtained by her in the appropriate college, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible and if all the seats are got filled up the University is directed to admit the petitioner by creating a supernumerary seat to mutigate the injustice done to her. If any permission is required by the A I CTE, the University shall approach the AICTE for permission duly enclosing a copy of the order. The AICTE is directed to consider the proposal, if any, sent by the respondent University, in the light of the view taken by this Court. The whole exercise has to be completed within four weeks from date of receipt of the proposal, both by the respondent University as well as the AICTE. If the petitioner is eligible to get admission the respondent University shall allow her to attend the classes until a formal approval is received from the AICTE.
With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed accordingly, but in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.