Tanishq Mehta v. Guru Ghasidas Central University

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (C) No. 1677 of 2020

1. Tanishq Mehta S/o Arvind Mehta Aged About 17 Years R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. Represented Through Legal Guardian Father Arvind Mehta S/o Late G P Mehta, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near Old Bus Stand, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

2. Mohammed Zaid S/o Mohammed Sanaullah Ansari Aged About 18 Years R/o Rasulpur, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s)

Versus

Guru Ghasidas Central University Through Its Registrar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Kishore Narayan, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 06.08.2020 1.

The relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is for an appropriate direction to the respondent to permit the petitioners to submit their forms to participate in the Vishwavidyalaya Entrance Test for the BALLB five years course for the session 2020-21. 2.

The only ground on which the petitioners are seeking for the said relief is that as they were the students of Class-12th CBSE Course, their results have come only on 13.07.2020 whereas, the advertisement issued by the University was as early as on 29.04.2020 and the last date initially for submission of the application was 30.05.2020 which was subsequently extended on a couple of occasions and it was lastly extended uptill 30.06.2020. According to the petitioners, since the results of Class 12th CBSE was declared only on 13.07.2020 they never had an occasion for applying and now that the results have come and they have obtained the

-2mark sheet, they should have got chance of participating in the process of selection for the BALLB course conducted by the University. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, on the other hand, submits that it is a case where in the advertisement itself it was evidently clear that there was no requirement for a candidate to submit his mark sheet or certificate for admission. The petitioners also could have easily participated and they were aware of the advertisement having been issued and the last date for submission of application also having been extended from time to time. He further submits that the respondent also have received 100 of applications from candidates similarly placed that of the petitioners but who did not wait for the mark sheets or results to be declared. They have applied and who have now been called upon to submit their mark sheet and certificates of their having passed 12th examination.

4.

Given the said facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that nothing prevented the petitioners also from participating in the selection process and could have applied for the same and if they would have applied and if the respondent would have insisted for the submission of the mark sheet or certificate before the results were declared, the petitioners could have had some claim. That since the petitioners, for reasons best known, did not apply for the same inspite of being in full knowledge of the advertisement and the last date of submission of the applications, it is the petitioners alone who has to be blamed. 5.

The respondent cannot at this juncture be ordered to further reopen the selection process by calling on fresh applications from the candidates who had not applied at the first instance. Such a procedure or method if

-3adopted would open a Pandora box and it would also create unnecessary hurdle and hassles for the University in finalizing the selection process. 6.

Considering the fact that there was no requirement at any point of time for submission of the mark sheets or declaring of the results of Class 12 th for the purpose of applying for the course in which the petitioners are interested and having not done so, this court does not find any merits on the claim put forth by the petitioners.

7.

The writ petition accordingly stands rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder