Rejoinder affidavit is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Manjive Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents-University.
By means of the instant petition the petitioner assails the communication dated 19.01.2021 by which the admission in Ph.D. (Law Programme 2020-21) has not been provided to the petitioner under the unreserved Person With Disability Category.
The ground of challenge as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has obtained higher marks in the written qualifying examination. She had also specifically mentioned in her examination form that she was entitled to the P.W.D. under the unreserved category. Since, there was no seat reserved for the aforesaid category, thus, the respondents-University has unjustifiedly refused the admission to the petitioner whereas she was entitled to the same.
This Court by means of the order dated 29.01.2021 had called upon the respondents-University to produce the record. The same was placed before the Court and the University had also filed their counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit.
During the course of hearing, Shri Manjive Shukla, learned counsel for the University has taken the Court through the matter and has informed that insofar as the petitioner is concerned she as well as another candidate namely Prabhat Dixit, both had applied for the aforesaid course of Ph.D. (Law Programme 2020-21) and both had applied under the unreserved Person With Disability Category. As per the selection process, the candidate must score 50% of the marks to make them eligible to appear in interview. Insofar as unreserved category under the Person With Disability candidates are concerned, they are also entitled to 5% relaxation in the marks.
By referring to the result, which has been declared, a copy of the which has been annexed as Annexure No.CA-7 filed along with the counter affidavit it has been pointed out that the petitioner had scored 38 marks in the written examination whereas other candidate namely Prabhat Dixit had scored 34 marks. Though the petitioner had scored higher marks clearing the written examination to be called for the interview having scored above 50% but insofar as other candidate under the Person With Disability category is concerned, he after being provided the relaxation of 5% was also entitled to appear in the interview. Thus, both the candidates appeared for the interview wherein the other candidate namely Prabhat Dixit scored higher marks than the petitioner as a result there was a tie. In terms of the policy in case of tie, the marks obtained by the candidates in their master degree would be considered.
Since, the petitioner had qualified Master Prgramme from Gujarat National Law University, Gandhi Nagar where as per her mark-sheet, percentage was not awarded but she was awarded Cumulative Grade Point Average (C.G.P.A.) and she scored 6.63 (C.G.P.A.) whereas insofar as the other candidate is concerned, he had obtained 74.58%.
In view of the aforesaid unequal parameters of marks of the two candidates and in order to draw a parity between C.G.P.A. and percentage, the Court by means of the order dated 05.02.2021 had requested Shri Manjive Shukla to ascertain the fact and the basis how the C.G.P.A. 6.63 was translated and compared with percentage marks in order to arrive at a consensus who obtained the higher marks.
It has been informed by Shri Shukla that after the order of this Court dated 05.02.2021, the admission committee of the University reconsidered the matter and considering the grade awarded to the petitioner with the value as provided in the mark-sheet and giving her benefit of the maximum percentage of marks as provided even then her total percentage worked out to 74% whereas that of the other candidate was 74.58% and in this view of the matter the seat has been offered to Shri Prabhat Dixit.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court having considered the matter is of the view that the process as adopted by the University cannot be faulted. This Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been agitating her rights and it is at the instance of the petitioner that initially no seat was reserved but subsequently one seat under the unreserved Person With Disability Category was made available. The petitioner submits that she may be permitted to make a representation to the University, who may consider her request for creating another seat sympathetically.
This Court cannot restrain the petitioner to make a representation, however, in case if she chooses to make a representation to the University, it shall be considered by the University, who shall decide the same expeditiously in its wisdom without being influenced with any of the observations made by this Court in this order.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 9.2.2021 Rakesh/-