Shailesh Goswami v. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Raipur

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2631 of 2018

1. Shailesh Goswami S/o Shri Ganesh Gir Goswami Aged About 18 Years Student Of Margdarshan Sansthan Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Ambikapur District Surguja, R/o B/179 Shakti Nagarm Gevra, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

2. Ku. Pooja Chndrakar D/o Shri Rohit Chandrakar Aged About 18 Years Student Of Margdarshan Sansthan Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Ambikapur District Surguja, R/o Mokhla, Tahsil Arang, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Ku. Amita Kaushik D/o Shri Ramesh Kaushik Aged About 18 Years Student Of Margdarshan Sansthan Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Ambikapur District Surguja, R/o Ganiyari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Raipur Through Its Registrar, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Raipur Krishi Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Dean Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (Head Of Counseling) Krishi Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Margdarshan Sansthan Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Ambikapur, Through Its Principal, Margdarshan Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioners : Shri Sourabh Sharma, Advocate.

For Respondents 1 & 2 : Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Vikram Dixit, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Order On Board 24/10/2018 :

1. The petitioners would seek direction to the respondents to allow

them to continue B.Sc. (Agriculture) Course in Marg Darshan Sansthan Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Ambikapur, as they were duly admitted in the said college upon counseling held by respondent No.1 - University.

2. Admittedly, the petitioners appeared in the Pre-Agriculture Test Entrance Examination, 2018 and on the strength of their merit, they were allowed to appear in the counseling conducted by the University wherein they were allotted Marg Darshan Sansthan Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Ambikapur for being admitted in the B.Sc. (Agriculture) course. After the petitioners reported their joining in the said college, it was the duty of the college to have fed information about the petitioners' joining in on-line system so that the University is aware that the petitioners have obtained admission.

The college inadvertently failed to punch on-line system against the names of the petitioners, therefore, computer generated list of candidates admitted to the college did not reflect the names of the petitioners as candidates who were granted admission by the college in the B.Sc. (Agriculture) course. This created problem for the petitioners, as despite appearing in the counseling and having been permitted by the University to join with the respondent-college, they were not legally shown to have been admitted in the college.

3. It appears, the petitioners were not at fault at any point of time and had secured admission after being successful in the entrance examination and counseling.

4. Therefore, the Writ Petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed

directing the respondent-college to submit fresh list of candidates admitted in the B.Sc. (Agriculture) Course, 2018 by including the petitioners' names in the said list and thereafter the University shall take all consequential measures to treat the petitioners who have been validly admitted in the said Course. Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Barve