High court slams BIT’s unclear rules and orders to admit the candidates fairly written by Sabareesh Pillay student of School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus
Birla Institute Of Technology Mesra Ranchi Vs. Yamini Shukla And Ors.
FACTS:
In this case, the respondent who has filed an appeal before the high court of Allahabad against Birla Institute of Technology Ranchi had applied for the entrance exam of the MCA course of the same institute and a call letter was issued to her implying that she has passed the entrance exam. Soon, a list of candidates who were admitted to the MCA course was displayed on the Notice Board of the Administrative Department of the Institute at Ranchi and her name was missing from that list. She also alleged that the candidates who were placed below her were present on the list put up on the notice board. The respondent could not present the graduation certificate and suspects that it was the reason she was not given admission but stated that it should not have been a reason for rejection as it was not deemed compulsory.
ISSUE:
Article 14 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.
PETITIONER CONTENTION:
It was contended by the petitioner that the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification at the relevant time for admission to the MCA course and also argued that it was a prerequisite that the petitioner should have cleared the qualifying examination before appearing for the interview. Since she failed to obtain the required certification her application was rejected.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION:
The respondent contended that, she never received any information about the compulsory requirement of mark-sheet and it should have been written in the brochure or conveyed to her. Also, a student with the same circumstances was admitted in the same college recently and she was allowed with the condition that her mark sheet be provided soon. So if the institute allowed the other candidate to take the admission and why was the respondent not allowed the same. It is further clarified that at the time of the interview, the petitioner knew that no mark sheet was submitted by the respondent and the college had full knowledge of it. No objection was taken by the college at that point.
JUDGEMENT:
The bench of Justice Brijesh Kumar and Justice K.C. Bhargava said that:
“According to two clauses of Art. 226 of the Constitution it is clear that a High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution which gives the fundamental rights. It can also do so if the cause of action, (wholly/partly), had risen in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction”.
The court said that it has some arbitrary power to take decisions on such issues and mentioned that since it is a specialized course, the authorities concerned must always endeavor to select the most suitable and meritorious persons. Lastly, the court declared that the respondent is to be admitted in the college with reasonable facilities to cover the lost period of the semester and the appeal by the petitioners be dismissed.
Leave a Reply