Rajat Teotia (Minor) v. Rajiv Gandhi National University Of Law, Punjab And ANR.

VINOD KUMAR 2016.05.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10229 of 2016 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.10229 of 2016 Date of decision:23.05.2016 Rajat Teotia

...Petitioner

Versus

Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab & anr. ...Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

The petitioner appeared in the Common Law Admission Test2016 under the "unreserved" category. He filed an application to respondent No.1 to change his category to "OBC" as according to him, he belongs to Jat community which is included in the OBC category in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is entitled to reservation. The said application was declined by respondent No.1 on the ground that the admit card only indicates the information furnished by the petitioner in the application form and the admission shall be made in accordance with the information provided therein.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & anr., 2016(2) JT 414 in support of his

VINOD KUMAR 2016.05.26 09:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.10229 of 2016 [ 2 ] ***** submissions.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the available record.

Insofar as the decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (supra) is concerned, the specific question involved in that case was as to whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the OBC category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the O.B.C. Category or not? This question is not involved in the present case because the petitioner is now praying for switching over from "unreserved" category to a reserved category for the purpose of admission. However, he has failed to cite any provision of the brochure in this regard.

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.

May 23, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge