of Uttar Pradesh and Ors Vs. Anand Singh  INSC 662 (16 April 2008)
B.N. AGRAWAL & G.S. SINGHVI O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2816 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9506
of 2007) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It appears that in B.T.C. Entrance Examination, 2000, respondent-Anand Singh
and one Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had also appeared and a waiting list was prepared.
In the waiting list at serial No.1, name of the respondent was mentioned and in
waiting list No.2, that of Dhiraj Kumar Mishra. A complaint was made before the
learned Single Judge of the High Court that in spite of the fact that name of
respondent was at Serial No.1 in the waiting list, Dhiraj Kumar Mishra, whose
name was at Serial No.2., was granted admission.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and
directed that respondent shall be granted admission in the vacancy available in
the year 2003. The said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench. Hence,
this appeal by special leave.
....2/- - 2 - The stand of the appellant is that waiting list was prepared
according to roll numbers and not as per merit. It has been stated that
respondent had secured 147.64 marks, whereas Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had secured
159.34 marks. The roll number of the respondent was 366213 and that of Dhiraj
Kumar Mishra 366772. As Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had secured higher marks, he had a
preferential claim for admission and was rightly admitted. This being the
position, learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in allowing
the writ petition and the Division Bench should not have confirmed the same.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and writ
petition filed by respondent before the High Court is dismissed.