ORDER: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2816 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.
(C) No.9506 of 2007)
G.S. Singhvi, J.-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
It appears that in B.T.C. Entrance
Examination, 2000, respondent-Anand Singh and one Dhiraj Kumar Mishra
had also appeared and a waiting list was prepared. In the waiting list
at serial No.1, name of the respondent was mentioned and in waiting list
No.2, that of Dhiraj Kumar Mishra. A complaint was made before the
learned Single Judge of the High Court that in spite of the fact that
name of respondent was at Serial No.1 in the waiting list, Dhiraj Kumar
Mishra, whose name was at Serial No.2., was granted admission.
Learned Single Judge of the High
Court allowed the writ petition and directed that respondent shall be
granted admission in the vacancy available in the year 2003. The said
order has been confirmed by the Division Bench. Hence, this appeal by
The stand of the appellant is that waiting list was prepared according
to roll numbers and not as per merit. It has been stated that respondent
had secured 147.64 marks, whereas Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had secured 159.34
marks. The roll number of the respondent was 366213 and that of Dhiraj
Kumar Mishra 366772. As Dhiraj Kumar Mishra had secured higher marks, he
had a preferential claim for admission and was rightly admitted. This
being the position, learned Single Judge of the High Court was not
justified in allowing the writ petition and the Division Bench should
not have confirmed the same.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed,
impugned orders are set aside and writ petition filed by respondent
before the High Court is dismissed.
Print This Judgment