http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2816 of 2008

PETITIONER: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors

RESPONDENT: Anand Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/04/2008

BENCH: B.N. AGRAWAL & G.S. SINGHVI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O  R  D  E  R

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   2816    OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.9506 of 2007)

       Heard learned counsel for the parties.         Delay condoned.         Leave granted.         It appears that in B.T.C. Entrance Examination, 2000, respondent-Anand  Singh and one Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had also appeared and a waiting list was  prepared.  In the waiting list at serial No.1, name of the respondent was mentioned and  in waiting list No.2, that of Dhiraj Kumar Mishra.  A complaint was made before the  learned Single Judge of the High Court that in spite of the fact that name of  respondent was at Serial No.1 in the waiting list,  Dhiraj Kumar Mishra, whose name  was at Serial No.2., was granted admission.           Learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and  directed that respondent shall be granted admission in the vacancy available in the year  2003.  The said order has been confirmed by the Division Bench. Hence, this appeal by  special leave. ....2/-

- 2 -         The stand of the appellant is that waiting list was prepared according to roll  numbers and not as per merit.  It has been stated that respondent had secured 147.64  marks, whereas Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had secured 159.34 marks.  The roll number of  the respondent was 366213 and that of Dhiraj Kumar Mishra 366772.  As Dhiraj  Kumar Mishra had secured higher marks, he had a preferential claim for admission  and was rightly admitted.  This being the position, learned Single Judge of the High  Court was not justified in allowing the writ petition and the Division Bench should not  have confirmed the same.           Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and writ  petition filed by respondent before the High Court is dismissed.