Delhi High Court
Anupama Bhoria vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 September, 2002
Author: M Sarin
Bench: M Sarin
JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner was an aspirant for
admission to the BSC (Hons) Nursing Course, conducted
by respondent No. 2. The petitioner had passed her 10+2
senior secondary examination from Karnal. Petitioner
had submitted her application form for admission to
respondent No. 2 Raj Kumari Amrit Kaur College of
Nursing on 4.4.2002. An entrance test was conducted on
21.6.2002. Petitioner qualified the same. As per the
terms of the prospectus, she was required to furnish
the mark-sheet of 10+2 examination, latest by
28.6.2002.
2. Case of the petitioner is that the
mark-sheet was not available from the Board and could
only be obtained by her on 2.7.2002. She sent the same
respondent No. 2 promptly and was received by them on
4.7.2002. Petitioner states that she was disappointed
in not finding her name in the list of candidates
admitted to the course. On enquiries being made,
petitioner was informed that as she had failed to
submit the mark-sheet by the due date, her candidature
was not considered.
3. Respondents have filed counter
affidavit, wherein it is averred that the last date for
receipt of the completed application for BSC (Hons) was
9.4.2002. The last date for submission of mark-sheet
in cases where results were not declared in terms of
Clause 7(iv) of the prospectus was 28.6.2002. The
petitioner did not furnish the mark-sheet which
according to the petitioner as the same was not
available till 2.7.2002.
4. Dr. S.P. Sharma submits that she had sent
the mark sheet on 2.7.2002. It was received on
4.7.2002. Learned counsel for the respondent urges
that once a cut off date has been fixed it has to be
strictly adhered to and especially in this case when
the result was also out on 24.6.2002, the mark-sheet
should have been available immediately thereafter. In
the counter affidavit, the respondents have pointed out
that it was not a case where only the petitioner had
been made ineligible due to not adhering to the last
date for submission of mark sheet. There are in all
107 other candidates out of 583, who had passed the
entrance test but had been rejected due to non filing
of the mark sheet by 28.6.2002.
5. Counsel states that adequate provision
has been made by the respondents to provide for
submission of the provisional certificate along with
the application form in case the mark sheet was not
available initially. However, considering that the
admission has to attain a finality, the fixation of a
cut off date is inevitable. In the instant case it is
not only the petitioner, but there are about 107
candidates, who had failed to furnish their mark sheet
and who have been held ineligible.
6. In view of the discussion as aforesaid, even though it may be a hard and an unfortunate case, no
ground is made out for interference in the exercise of
writ jurisdiction.
Writ petition is dismissed.
