Dismissed

Raj Technical University v. Rav Gunawat and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Nov 2014SAW/856/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court found no merit in the appellant University's special appeal against the Single Judge's order that allowed the petitioner's writ petition regarding feeble eligibility criteria. It directed the University to declare the petitioner's result within a week.

What did the court decide?

The appellant University is directed to declare the result of the respondent-petitioner within a week of service of the certified copy of this order.

Raj Technical University Vs Rav Gunawat and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

-1-

¶2

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.856/2014. Raj.Technical Uni., Kota. VS Ravi Gunawat & Ors.

¶3

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.856/2014. Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. VERSUS

¶4

Ravi Gunawat & Others.

¶5

05.11.2014.

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA

¶7

Mr.K.N.Sharma, Counsel for appellant. Mr.Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Counsel for respondent-1. *****

¶8

Instant intra-court appeal has been filed against order of the ld.Single Judge dt.20.03.2014.

¶9

The respondent Ravi Gunawat, who was writ petitioner, after qualifying RPET, 2011 was eligible for B.Tech Course and is presently a student of 7^th Semester and after he took admission, he was not permitted to pursue the course on the premise that he is not holding minimum qualifying marks of 40% in all the three subjects Maths, Physics & Chemistry, which was one of the optional subject, which he had at the time of his Senior Secondary School Examination.

¶10

The writ petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe and minimum qualifying marks which was earlier notified of 45% were reduced to 40% by the State Government by its Policy and u/Cl.2.1 the subject combination of 10+2 examination, candidates of SC/ST category have to secure at least 40% marks but it does not indicate that in all the subjects one has to secure 40% marks as minimum qualifying marks, however, he was declared to be ineligible and not permitted to pursue his course. Thereafter, the writ petitioner approached this court by filing writ petition before the ld.Single Judge and is presently a student of B.Tech 7^th Semester.

¶11

-2-

¶12

D.B.Special Appeal (Writ) No.856/2014. Raj.Technical Uni., Kota. VS Ravi Gunawat & Ors.

¶13

However, the ld.Single Judge finally allowed the writ petition with the direction to the appellant-University to declare result of the writ petitioner and permit him to pursue the course.

¶14

Counsel for appellant-University submits that respondent-writ petitioner was not eligible to seek admission in B.Tech Course on the basis of Cl.2.1 Educational Qualification of the guidelines but what has been contended before the ld.Single Judge and also before this court, we find that there is nothing which could indicate that for admission to B.Tech Course one has to secure 40% marks in each subject as a condition precedent to hold eligibility and this what the ld.Single Judge also considered while passing the order impugned dt.20.03.2014.

¶15

We have heard the counsel for parties and we do not find any error in the order impugned which requires any interference by this court in the intra-court appeal. However, it is informed to this court that result of the respondent-writ petitioner still has not been declared by the appellant-University despite order of the ld.Single Judge dt.20.03.2014.

¶16

Consequently, the instant intra-court appeal is devoid of merit, stands dismissed and we direct the appellant-University to declare result of the respondent-writ petitioner within a week of certified copy of this order being served.

¶17

(J.K.RANKA),J.

¶18

(AJAY RASTOGI),J.

¶19

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, Sr.P.A.

Raj Technical University v. Rav Gunawat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Technical University v. Rav Gunawat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Deepak Kumar Mathur Vs State Urban Developmentors

Harish Kumar Raimalani Vs C I T Ajmer

Kunj Bihari Sharma Vs State Home Departmentors

C.I.T. Vs M/S.Kamal Eng.Ltd.

Bablu Saini and Anr. Vs State Forest Departmentors

Abdul and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.