The petitioner had applied for admission in M.Sc. (Telecommunication) in the respondent- University. Apart from complying with the other conditions, he made the requisite deposits within the stipulated time It has been pleaded that the form has been rejected on the sole ground that the deposit has not been made.
2. This case came up on 28-2-2005 when learned A.A.-G. Has put in appearance on Court call. He was handed over the copy of the writ petition with the copies of the deposit challans and to call upon the respondents to file a report. Today, the learned counsel for the respondents has put in appearance and has also filed a report. According to the said report, it has been admitted that the amount, in fact, was deposited within the stipulated time. However, the deposit challans or its B copy was not appended with the admission form and consequently the petitioner who, in fact, had come on the merit list was rejected and the next man in waiting was admitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the Prospectus a list of documents to accompany the form has been stated but it does not include the challan or its copy. Apart from this, he was C issued a receipt of documents and no objection was raised that the challan is not there. According to the learned counsel, his client has been deprived of the admission without any fault whatsoever. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have filed a copy of the challan and his failure to do so has resulted in rejection of admission form which is correct.
4. I have given some thought to the respective contentions of the parties. Now I, find that the Bank where the deposit is to be made is Habib Bank Limited and is located in the Campus of the respondent-University. To my mind, it was not at all difficult for the respondents to have verified the factum of deposit. I am also in agreement with the learned counsel that as such there is no explicit requirement to append the copy of the challan with the form. There is no denial that the petitioner is entitled to admission as per the merit list drawn up by the respondents.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents then argues that since another boy as already been admitted this will create complication. Nothing turns on this contention.
6. It is for the respondents to provide for a seat to the petitioner for which he is eligible according to their own criteria. No fault is to be attributed to the petitioner in the matter particularly when it stands admitted that the requisite deposit had been made within time. The writ petition accordingly is allowed and a mandamus is issued to the respondents to admit the petitioner to the M.Sc. (Telecommunication Course). No order as to costs.