(iii) It is further contended that after receiving the applications from the students for the D.EI.Ed examinations and after hosting the Hall tickets, the 3rd respondent has observed that the name of the candidate associated with the Roll No.1920908123 was changed and the name of the candidate admitted through the spot admission quota is different from the name of the candidate in the on-line application. It is true that earlier the petitioner was allowed to the examination for the reason that at the time of issuance of Hall tickets whatever admission data provided by the unofficial respondent for the candidates, the Hall Tickets were issued. However, after the completion of examination, in view of the provision provided by the 3rd respondent for making minor corrections, if any, through on-line, several applications were received by the 3rd respondent for correction. At that time it was observed that instead of making minor corrections, the entire details of the candidates have been changed. Noticing the said fact, the 3rd respondent called for the entire data of management and spot admission quota and after due verification, it was found that the candidates who were shown in the spot admission were different from the candidates appeared for written examination, which is nothing but fraud on the part of the unofficial respondent. Therefore along with the petitioner’s result, 25 such other students’ results were withheld. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same may be dismissed.
