Full Judgment
Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Counsel holding brief of Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and have perused the record. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the had applied for admission in the B.Ed. course and after counselling conducted by the respondent-University, he was allotted the respondent No. 4-College. The petitioner thereafter deposited the entire fees and continued his studies of B.Ed. course. At the time when the petitioner was to appear in the examination of B.Ed., the respondent-University refused to issue the admit card to the petitioner and to permit the petitioner appear in the examination on the ground that the petitioner had less than 45% marks in the B.A. examination. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-University that the Rules provide that the candidate should possess 45% marks and the petitioner had only 44.7% marks in B.A. examination, thus the respondent-University was right in refusing to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination.
3. It is true that in professional courses, when there is eligibility criteria, the same should be fulfilled before such person is granted admission to such professional courses. However, in the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner had misrepresented or made any false disclosure. The petitioner had submitted his correct marks-sheet of B.A. examination, from which it was clear that the petitioner had been awarded 44.7% marks in the B.A. examination. The University, after having perused the same, permitted the petitioner to appear for the counseling, and after such counseling, the petitioner was allotted the respondent No. 4-College, where he took admission after depositing the entire fees and has also attended the classes of B.Ed. If at all there is any mistake, it is on the part of the University and the petitioner (student) cannot be blamed for having sought admission in the B.Ed, course through any wrong means.
4. Learned Counsel for the respondent-University has further submitted that 44.7% marks cannot be rounded off 45% marks for the purpose of admission and as the Rules provide that in case of any wrong disclosure, the admission can be cancelled at any stage. Hence, under this clause, the University has cancelled the admission of the petitioner and refuse to grant permission to the petitioner to appear in the examination.
5. Be that as it may, since the petitioner is not guilty of having committed any fraud or misrepresentation and he had submitted his correct marks-sheet of B. A. examination before the respondent-University, and University after considering the same, had granted admission to the petitioner and allotted the respondent No. 4-College after proper counselling, the petitioner cannot, in such facts, be said to be at fault. The respondent-University cannot, at the last stage, when the petitioner has already attended the classes and is now to appear in the examination, refuse to grant permission to the petitioner to appear in the examination on such ground, which was known to it right from the beginning when the petitioner had sought admission. Thus, in equity as well as in the interest of justice, it is a fit case for grant of mandamus, directing the respondent-University to permit the petitioner to appear in the B.Ed. examination. Learned Counsel for the respondent-University states that the next examinations are likely to be held in July, 2009.
6. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed. It is thus directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the next examination of B.Ed. course to be conducted by the respondent-University, which is scheduled to be held in July, 2009 (or any time immediately thereafter).
No order as to costs.