' The petitioner applied for admission to B-Pharmacy classes at the respondent-University. He was admitted in the evening program against open merit and deposited the requisite fee of Rs.44,950.
Thereafter, a roll number was issued to him and he also started attending regular classes under Roll No.91-E-03. The petitioner has now been informed verbally that he cannot continue classes. It was to challenge this verbal order that the present petition was filed. Comments were called from the respondent-University and have been submitted today.
2. I have gone through the comments and have also heard both learned counsel. According to the respondent-University, although the petitioner had applied for admission on merit, he, inadvertently, was admitted in excess of the 90 seats, which were reserved for candidates succeeding on merit. At present, there is no indication in the comments as to the nature of the inadvertence or the person who was responsible for committing such error. The question of inadvertence, as such, does not hold water on the basis of the available record. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no question of any inadvertence because the petitioner had clearly applied for admission on merit and the application forms themselves are coloured differently to distinguish applicants on merit from other applicants who apply for admission against reserved seats.
3. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Admission Regulations of the respondent-University and, in particular, to Regulation No.5(i) thereof. In the said regulation, it has been stipulated that if seats reserved for the sons/daughters of teachers remain unfilled, the same will be offered to the candidates of other categories. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even on the basis of the aforesaid regulation, the petitioner can be adjusted because presently the two seats available for sons and daughters of teachers are unfilled. This contention is also well-founded although learned counsel for the respondent- University has referred to Regulation No.5(v) in which it is stipulated that reserved seats, which remain unfilled, will not be transferred to the merit quota.
4. Regulation 5(v) appears to be wholly arbitrary as I have not been able to discern any rational basis for the same. It is obvious that the teaching arrangements have been put in place by the respondent-University to cater for all admitted candidates inclusive of candidates admitted against reserved seats. As such, I do not see why the petitioner, who stands admitted and has also commenced classes, should be deprived of admission when adequate teaching arrangements exist for him considering that the seats reserved for sons/daughters of teachers are unfilled.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to continue B- Pharmacy classes, which he has joined as regular student.
6. Before parting with this order, I need to note that learned counsel for the respondent-University raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of this petition. He contended that there was an Appellate Admission Committee, which had been constituted under Regulation No.13 of the Admission Regulations. According to learned counsel, the petitioner could agitate his grievance before the Appellate Committee, which provided an adequate alternate remedy. This contention, however, is not well-founded because the petitioner has already approached the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University, who has disallowed the petitioner's application. Furthermore, in view of the objections taken by the respondent-University in its comments, and more specifically the assertion that the petitioner's admission was a result of inadvertence, the Appellate Admission Committee can hardly provide redress to .The petitioner.. In these circumstances, the appellate remedy before the Appellate Admission Committee is certainly not adequate.