Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Later, the petitioner applied for 3 year B.L. Course Entrance Examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. In the Prospectus, it has been clearly mentioned that those who have appeared for the final year examination for the degree course in the year 2005 and awaiting results may also apply. Subsequently, he received the Hall Ticket no.340579 and wrote the Entrance Examination at Coimbatore on 14.08.2005. The result was published on 25.08.2005 in which he secured 50.375%. Thereafter, the counseling letter was sent to him asking him to appear for the counseling session on 19.09.2005, the first day of counseling for 3 year B.L. course as he secured very high marks. His overall rank is 63 in O.C. (open competition). In view of his ranking position, he was sure to get admission to the Government Law College, Coimbatore.

8. A reading of the Instructions 2(iii) and 2(vii) of the Prospectus is as below:

2(iii) Those who have appeared for the final year examination of the above-mentioned degree courses in the year 2005 and awaiting results may also apply.
2(vii) Candidates who have not passed qualifying examination and not received the degree/provisional certificate on the date of counseling are not eligible for admission to 3 year degree course.

9. The petitioner further contends that Instruction 2(vii) must be read subject to Instruction 2(iii) and that Instruction 2(iii) is over-riding. Under Instruction 2(iii), the petitioner has acquired a valuable legal right to get admission to the B.L. Degree course and it cannot be deprived of by the unreasonable condition imposed under Instruction 2(vii). Since the request of the petitioner to grant him time to produce the Provisional Certificate has been turned down by the third respondent, he contends that the action of the third respondent is arbitrary and unfair and further submits that it is unreasonable on the part of the counseling authorities to insist on the production of final year mark sheet and Provisional Certificate in spite of the fact that he had informed that same would be issued by the concerned authority the very next day of counseling i.e. 20.09.2005.

12. In such circumstances, he has challenged the action of the third respondent and challenges Instruction 2(vii) of the Prospectus on the ground that the authorities have permitted candidates who have appeared for degree courses and are awaiting results and it is not proper to insist that the Provisional Certificate has to be produced at the time of counseling itself. It is contended by the petitioner that he cannot be penalised for the delay on the part of the University in furnishing the required certificates.

26. The third respondent university contends that the impugned instructions challenged in this writ petition under Instruction 2(vii) in the prospectus is not unreasonable as alleged by the petitioner. Non-publication of results by Annamalai University on or before the date of counseling cannot be taken as ground for deferring the counseling session for this petitioner alone. Mere taking the entrance examination does not confer any right for admission.

27. The third respondent university further contends that during the last academic year, i.e. 2004-2005, series of writ petitions were filed by similarly situated candidates. One of such is W.P. No.25751 of 2004 wherein, a candidate who had studied B.A. (History) through Annamalai University through correspondence course and awaiting results at the time of counseling prayed for admission. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition on 05.10.2004 held that the reason given by the University for non-consideration of the petitioner's application is perfectly valid. The action of the University in not permitting the petitioner at the counseling session is not unconstitutional or violative of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.