Patiala Vs. Raghav Pathak  INSC 1229 (25 July 2008)
SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA 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.
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.
Mr. Vikram Mehta,adv.
Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr.
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv.(NP) UPON hearing counsel the Court made the
following ORDER Leave granted.
The appeals are
[SUMAN WADHWA] [VEERA
VERMA] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER Signed order is placed on the file.
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4672-73 OF 2008
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 23946-47/2007) THAPAR UNIVERSITY, PATIALA
...APPELLANT VERSUS ORDER Leave granted.
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 -2- appellant-University refused to accede to his request. The
respondent challenged the decision of the appellant-University before the High
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 -3- 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 beadmitted 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.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)