25 July 2008
Supreme Court
Download

THAPAR UNIVERSITY, PATIALA Vs RAGHAV PATHAK

Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,DALVEER BHANDARI,HARJIT SINGH BEDI, ,
Case number: C.A. No.-004672-004673 / 2008
Diary number: 36020 / 2007
Advocates: VIKAS MEHTA Vs DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINHA


1

ITEM NO.42                 COURT NO.1               SECTION IVB

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).23946-23947/2007

(From the judgement and order dated 15/10/2007&4/12/07 in  CWP No. 12113/2007 & CWP No. 17046/2007  of The HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)

THAPAR UNIVERSITY, PATIALA                           Petitioner(s)

                     VERSUS

RAGHAV PATHAK                                        Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and prayer for interim relief )

Date: 25/07/2008  These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :         HON'BLE  THE CHIEF JUSTICE         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Indu Malhotra,Sr.adv. Mrs.Shashi N.Kapila,adv. Mr. Vikram Mehta,adv. Mr. Abhinav Agnihotri,Adv.

                     Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv.

For Respondent(s)     Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha,Adv.(NP)

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R  

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed.

No costs.

      [SUMAN WADHWA]           [VEERA VERMA]     COURT MASTER                   COURT MASTER

      Signed order is placed on the file.

2

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

     CIVIL  APPEAL NOS. 4672-73     OF 2008       (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 23946-47/2007)

THAPAR UNIVERSITY, PATIALA              ...APPELLANT                  

                     VERSUS

RAGHAV PATHAK              ...RESPONDENT      

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Thapar  University,  Patiala  is  the  appellant.   We have heard the  learned

counsel appearing for the appellant-University.  Though the respondent was served

with the notice issued by this Court, but he had not chosen to appear in Court.

The  respondent  passed  the  All  India  Engineering  Entrance  Examination

(AIEEE) and appeared for counselling before the appellant-University.  He had chosen

the subject of his choice.   The respondent later came to know that there was a vacancy

in B.E. (Computer Engineering) and he sought to get admission in B.E. (Computer

Engineering).  However, the

3

-2-

appellant-University refused to accede to his request.  The respondent challenged the

decision of the appellant-University before the High Court.  

The  High  Court  held  that  there  were  vacant  seats  in  B.E.  (Computer

Engineering) and the respondent  be allowed to have the second counselling and be

given admission against the vacant seats in B.E. (Computer Engineering) course.  The

High  Court  further  directed  the  appellant-University  to  consider  the  claim of  the

respondent for admission in B.E. (Computer Engineering) within two weeks from the

date of  receipt of a copy of the impugned order.  This order of  the High Court is

challenged before us.

The  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant-University  argued  that

there are several vacancies in the various disciplines but they cannot be filled up after

the academic session had already started and both theory and practical classes of first

semester were already completed by the time the impugned order was passed.  It was

further stated that the respondent had secured a low rank, that is, 34582 in the AIEEE

and the last student admitted to the

-3-

appellant-University in B.E. (Computer Science) had secured a rank of 6303 and had

there been further counselling there are several other students who are eligible to be

4

admitted to B.E. (Computer Engineering)  course, and by superseding their claim, the

respondent cannot be given admission to B.E. (Computer Engineering).

In view of the aforesaid circumstances,  we do not  find any reason to justify

the impugned order passed by the High Court.   The impugned order is set aside.   

In the result,  the appeals are allowed.  No costs.

……..…………………………CJI (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

……………………………………J. (DALVEER BHANDARI)

……………………………………J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

NEW DELHI; JULY 25, 2008.