Neha v. Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University & ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15058 of 2014 (O & M) Date of decision: 08.09.2015 Neha ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

Present:

Mr. S.K. Verma Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. R.K. Rvesh, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 3.

Mr. I.S. Pabla, Advocate, for respondents no. 4 to 7.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks admission against 4 seats reserved for Backward Class-A category in M.Tech. in Electronics and Communication Engineering which is a two years' course for the session 2014-15. The plea taken is that the seats were wrongly filled up by giving admission to the Backward Class-B category candidates and the petitioner was wrongly ignored.

In the written statement filed by respondents no. 1 to 3, it has been averred that the first counselling took place on 08.07.2014 and the petitioner was present. She was required to bring the attested copies of the qualifying examinations and the original testimonials but she was not carrying the original testimonials. She failed to even produce the scanned coloured copies of the documents and was denied admission in the first counselling. As per guidelines, Backward Class-A category seats, if remained vacant, were to be filled from the candidates of Backward Class-B SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.09.10 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

-2category candidates on inter conversion.

It is further averred that on account of the representation made by the petitioner, her request was considered and it was decided to grant admission to her by creating a supernumerary seat. She was asked to attend counselling scheduled on 25.07.2014 and 01.08.2014 but she did not report in spite of being communicated on telephone. It is also a matter of record that on the complaint of the petitioner, an Enquiry Committee was also constituted to enquire into the matter and it was noticed that the candidate did not report on 25.07.2014 and 01.08.2015. This would be clear from the letter dated 18.12.2014 (Annexure R-5) addressed to the Additional Chief Secretary by the Registrar. The said allegations have not been controverted by the petitioner by filing any replication.

As noticed, the course is for a period of two years and one year has already expired. At this stage, no relief of admission can now be granted to the petitioner and the present writ petition is dismissed. In case the petitioner has any grouse regarding her claim of compensation on account of wrong conversion of seats, it is always open to her to claim the same in a Court of competent jurisdiction.

08.09.2015 (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) shivani JUDGE SHIVANI GUPTA 2015.09.10 12:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh