LawDistill
Supreme Court of India

THAPAR UNIVERSITY, PATIALA vs RAGHAV PATHAK on 25 July, 2008

Cites 0 provisionsCites 0 judgmentsCited by 0
C.A. No.-004672-004673 - 2008Official PDFBench Konakuppakatil Gopinathan Balakrishnan, Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, Dalveer Bhandari, Harjit Singh BediAdvocates VIKAS MEHTA | DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINHA
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.1 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).23946-23947/2007
(From the judgement and order dated 15/10/2007&4/12/07 in CWP No. 12113/2007 & CWP No.
17046/2007 of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
THAPAR UNIVERSITY, PATIALA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAGHAV PATHAK Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and prayer for interim relief )
Date: 25/07/2008 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.adv.
Mrs.Shashi N.Kapila,adv.
Mr. Vikram Mehta,adv.
Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv.(NP)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed.

No costs.

Signed order is placed on the file.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4672-73 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 23946-47/2007)

Leave granted.

Thapar University, Patiala is the appellant. We have heard the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-University. Though the respondent was served

with the notice issued by this Court, but he had not chosen to appear in Court.

The respondent passed the All India Engineering Entrance Examination

(AIEEE) and appeared for counselling before the appellant-University. He had chosen

the subject of his choice. The respondent later came to know that there was a vacancy

in B.E. (Computer Engineering) and he sought to get admission in B.E. (Computer

Engineering). However, the

appellant-University refused to accede to his request. The respondent challenged the

decision of the appellant-University before the High Court.

The High Court held that there were vacant seats in B.E. (Computer

Engineering) and the respondent be allowed to have the second counselling and be

given admission against the vacant seats in B.E. (Computer Engineering) course. The

High Court further directed the appellant-University to consider the claim of the

respondent for admission in B.E. (Computer Engineering) within two weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of the impugned order. This order of the High Court is

challenged before us.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University argued that

there are several vacancies in the various disciplines but they cannot be filled up after

the academic session had already started and both theory and practical classes of first

semester were already completed by the time the impugned order was passed. It was

further stated that the respondent had secured a low rank, that is, 34582 in the AIEEE

and the last student admitted to the

appellant-University in B.E. (Computer Science) had secured a rank of 6303 and had

there been further counselling there are several other students who are eligible to be admitted to B.E. (Computer Engineering) course, and by superseding their claim, the

respondent cannot be given admission to B.E. (Computer Engineering).

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason to justify

the impugned order passed by the High Court. The impugned order is set aside.

In the result, the appeals are allowed. No costs.

JULY 25, 2008.