When the Guide who is the person in the field and others had recommended the r
epresentation for consideration of the authority favouring the said prayer made therein, the c
ompetent authority as it appears has not assigned any reason of his disagreement. In my consid
ered view, in view of said recommendation of the application by the Guide and other authoritie
s, the competent authority was under legal obligation to accord the reasons of his disagreemen
t in rejecting the prayer as recommended, more particularly when others similarly situated in
the facts and circumstances have been so permitted. Necessary satisfaction having already been
arrived at by the Guide concerned and he had so recommended with a note of consent to the sam
e having further been viewed by other required authority, the order of the competent authority
without any reason as communicated to the petitioner as at Annexure-4 is thus not only found
to be arbitrary but also discriminatory. The said order of rejection thus as communicated to t
he petitioner under Annexure-4 is liable to be quashed.
In the result, the writ application is allowed with a direction to the opposi
te party nos.1 to 4 to pass necessary order in the matter of application for temporary withdra
wal to M.Tech. programme (2014-16) filed by the petitioner as forwarded by the Guide and other
s in accordance with law afresh maintaining parity, if so found, as per law within two weeks f
rom the date of communication of the order or production of its certified copy whichever is ea
rlier under intimation to the petitioner.
