Kulvinder Singh v. National Institute Of Technology Kurukshetra And ANR

CWP No.19307 of 2014 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19307 of 2014 Date of Decision.26.02.2015 Kulvinder Singh .......Petitioner

Versus

National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and another ...... Respondents

Present:

Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate for the respondents.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1.

The petitioner's grievance for non-admission into M.Tech course, although he had filed the application beyond the last date prescribed, is on the ground that in an earlier year for 2010-2011, yet another candidate had also applied beyond the last date but he was granted admission. The admission to M.Tech course had been denied on two grounds. One, the last date for filing of application was 11.07.2014 and the counselling was fixed for 26.07.2014. The petitioner had actually applied only subsequent to both the last date of application and beyond the counselling date. The second objection taken by the respondent-institute for denying admission was that the petitioner had not even secured his graduate degree before the last date of the application. His degree itself was obtained only on 14.08.2014. There PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.03.02 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No.19307 of 2014 -2was also yet another objection that the petitioner who was applying under a sponsored candidate category was required to have at least two years' experience after graduation according to the prospectus. If his graduation itself had been taken only on 14.08.2014, he did not also satisfy the requirement regarding the number of years of experience. 2.

The petitioner's contention is that he is a General Secretary of the Workers' Union and therefore, the respondent is now trying to take vengeance against the petitioner. I will not treat this to be an issue for favourable consideration by citing the same situation where a person who had applied beyond the last date was also admitted. There can be no Article 14 where the action taken was improper. If the petitioner did not apply before the last date and when he had also not the requisite qualification as sponsored candidate of two years' experience after his graduation, I do not think that the respondent's decision is required to be tested through the writ petition. I will make no intervention in favour of the petitioner.

3.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 26, 2015 Pankaj* PANKAJ KUMAR 2015.03.02 13:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document