Rahul Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 1056 of 2017 • Rahul Singh S/o Kedar Singh Aged About 26 Years R/o Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Higher Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Directorate Of Technical Education, Through Its Director, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-3, 3rd/4th Floor, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Director, Disha Institute Of Management And Technology, Satya Vihar Colony, Nagdaha, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. University Grants Commission, Through Its Chairman, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi

5. Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism And Communication University Bhopal Madhya Pradesh Through Assistant Deputy Registrar, Madhya Pradesh Makhanlal Chaturvedi Rashtriy Patrakarita Vishvavidyalaya, Shanshthan Bhopal Madhya Pradesh.

6. Associate Study Center A A S S Information Technology, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :

Shri Vivek Tripathi, Advocate For State :

Shri PN Bharat, Additional Advocate General ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Sharad Kumar Gupta Order on Board Per Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan , Chief Justice 28.11.2017 1) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General.

2) The petitioner claims to have obtained Bachelor of Computer Application (BCA) degree from Makhanlal Chaturvedi National University

wpc- 1056 of 2017 of Journalism and Communication, Bhopal, the fifth respondent, after having undergone a course of study with the sixth respondent, which, admittedly, is one not affiliated to the said University, but is only a study centre. He claims that he is entitled to be admitted to the MBA course through a process of selection carried out through the second respondentDirectorate of Technical Education, Raipur. 3) The clear and firm case of the official respondents- 1 and 2 is that the petitioner claims to be in possession of a degree which is not recognised and therefore, he is ineligible to be given an admission in MBA course.

In support of the contentions, the respondents have also placed on record Annexure R/1, which includes the requisite clarifications given by the University Grants Commission through the Distance Education Bureau. It shows, among the other things, that the University and the Institution from which the petitioner allegedly obtained his BCA degree are not recognised. Under such circumstances, we are unable to accede to the request of the petitioner for any relief as sought for by him. This Writ Petition, therefore, fails.

4) In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 5) Sd/- Sd/- (Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) Chief Justice Judge padma