E
WP 8058/06
111 was more com': or rmmmmxa AT BANGALORE"
DA1'ED 11:13 THE 30114 my or JUNE, 20% 2' 'f ~ : "[j
sarong T 4' V .'
was Hormm MRJU8TI¢_E..3.§.PAj'ft£ " ~ if " '*
BETWEEN:
Mr. APURV KUMAR MISI-IRA, *
s/0 SR1 ANANBEE NATH MISHRA, '
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, '
R/AT NOB-«20,
INCOME TAX COLONY, ..
mama ROAD, ..
ow; usna KIRAN A§'ARTMENT,
NEAR JASLOK I-Iospm.-1., . « 1 '-
MUMBAI - 400 925'; .. ' ' H» PETITIQNER
{BY sm M.ASHWAT:FIA:§§§RA¥AN;§"RE§DY,§ADV.}
AND: ' V "
1. NAT:0r~zALLAw SCHOOL 022%.»? '
11~zmA UNIVB'£RSi'I'Y, ._ A .
NAGARA8HAV1,._ = = -
BANGALORE -- 56C~Q7_'2, _
'V " .REPRES3EN'I"ED BY
.R'EG:s'rRA.r<-mam CHANCELLOR.
2. 'THE__COfWE,NO.R,
common: LAW .ADMISS§ON
TEST (C1_m7,20oa,
3 NAT1o¥.§mL LAW SCHOOL OF'
"-INDIA UNIVERSITY,
' ,,NAGA.RABHAw,
= ::w§<3ALo§eE ~-- 560 072. RESPONDENTS
£9:/s. HOLLA 85 HOLLA, ADVS.}
THIS FETTTEON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
‘ ‘ ~ (§ONS’I’ITU’I’ION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R2
DT. 5.6.2008 VEDE ANNEXU, AND ETC.
WP 8058 /08
3
in the newspaper is produced at Am1exure~E. Pursuant to the
said paper advertisement, the pefaltioner agaplieci for
showing his first preference for the 1″ ICSpOI1dCI1t’p§§i:iOQ$aI’V34§#$07.
School of India University, Nagarabhavi,
has alse written letters addressedilhito *
National Law School of India U1;1iversify’–,
no.1} stating that although he Wstsjever efieceeded V’
the age limit of 20 by 10″‘de.ys as on
01.07.2003, he was mm 1.; 1;ai;ee:e 2003 under the
lfififimatc Chaflceflor had
addmssed__M_aV as per Annexuze-C,
that the petitioner could not
secure a sea’: j’13;et110″px%:ifio§:1.s–.eei:Jan2ix:ation held in the year 2007
V and for academic year, hopefully a common
all the law schools would be held and the
his ambition at that time. Petifioner
V V’ fu1t11e:%_a,sg:?ex’t.Vs.:’~’tI:1at based on the guidance and assurance given
” ” ‘T the a{1’tt§exities, he made critical career choices and decided
« i1e.it”t0 for engineering admissfitm. and instead prepared
Vfqrlfaw admission.
WP 8058 :08
5
that the respondents would consider the petitioner’s application
for admission to Rajiv Gandhi National University”
Patiala; and Chanakya Nationai Law Unive;fsi’t3?;
Aggzieved by this communieatzien, the pzesent
filed .
5. Learned Counsel for the petit:io1:terA
Redd]; submits that having aocepteei~.the
by the petitioner wherein date’6t”‘t:i;t;ti’zz9fas c}teé£t*1y”V1V:nez1tio11ed
as 21.05.1933 and having the CLAT Test
conducted Vprovisional admission
letter date£i”€)2e;§):€v_.V2(‘§t}8′, “es netbjzflaen for the respondents to
caucei that his age exceeds the
permissible _tjIe–. states that the Iespondents were
such stand and that the doctrine of
.V’]egittinate’v.eex;§eeitat:ion applies to the facts of the case. He has
next. the petitioner has not suppressed his age,
. en the try he had written letters explam 111′ g several
‘ eeiz’e11’1n.stances and making 3. request to issue admission in
enable him to appear for the CLAT though he was not
” the age limit of 20 years as on the cut-ofi” date.
“Thezefore, he contends that for no fault on the pan of the
WP 8058 /08
6
petitioner, the admission gven to him is cancelled. His next
contention is that the fixation of lower age limit at 20 years is
arbitrary, as there is no rational nexus with the object sought to
be achieved. It is lastly contended that the age limit
in the paper advertisement and also in the informs-iion ‘
is without authority of law, as them ~is.__I;o u l
which clothes the respondents with si’:ch§;{i*pow’lV er
limit. In other words, he coiiieiacls it; Aiiéghvsence off
statutory rule or regulation, the ..i_ixaiion.’of« of 20
years as arlmissioiillllis illegal. He has
placed by this Court in the
case of fifsllqry -‘Ltd. Vs. state of Kamataka
_ 5. msponaafitsl haize filed their statement of objections.
‘v.TIfie3′.hsa*e that as the petitioner was above the age of
Ox1u’.vI_l7.2008, he was not eligible for admission to
flag 15*”‘«res1;oix.:lc:it-University. It is further contended that right
Ville” 1987 upto 2007, the 1′” respondent-University
conducting the entrance test for admission to its
. However after the establishxxient of law schools in
élifiezent places in the countxy, which are run on the same lines
Vs
we sossxos
8
admitted. Thus it is contended that as the petitioner would
cross the age of 20 years as on 01.0′?.2008, he was not eligible
for admissixm to the 1″ respondent-University. I-Io\x;’eiv:ez:_”dit is
urged that the petitioner is eligiiole for admissiou’_to.’e1i§€:’
other Universities] Cofleges if he fizlengother ~.
It is the further stand of the reepo;J.de1}t~LIm;yfeteit$?..that’due
computer error, pefitionefs name-was e”i3,ofi;n i.;;1e3t1:ieAg1trvis;;ioi1a1″‘e.
admission letters and hence be ‘thelviiiatewiew.
When the mistake:’w_’as inhotvir;-ed 3 xrdespondent, they
informed the w_a:~ij notieflltdgible as he did not
fulfill theVvc:jtefiax” ,épIescn’bed. The demand
drafl pefitionernfae also returned.
7. Counselfor Iefiioiidents Sri Hofia contends that the
‘~”.2?%d meeely an agency which conducts the
.V’e:1″trei1.ee the actual admission to each of the
would be made by the respective
‘n.11iverei!:ie’s.:.iti xaccondance with their admission procedures and
veeqtfirements. He further urges that the OLA’? was
V as a consequence of the proceedings before the Apex
T for mitigating the hardship, both physical and financial to
‘4 3%: candidates due to multipie admission tests being conducted
w? 8058 (08
9
for difiezent law schools in eiiflerent places. He submits that
fixation of age limit of 20 yeazs is made by flaming regulations
in exercise of the power conferred under Section 13.: the
National Law School sf india Act (Karnataka Act (g%2″‘–
(‘Act’, for short). Learned Counsel has made it
Ceurt the relevant regulations alongg,\i?it}i1< 0-fr
Academic Council, Executive CounciIiA§3;1¢i–_t}:ie
Based on the approval given Ge1:er¢s1.._ the"
eligibility criteria for gdmissieniitoitile».il';res§ie1ident~Universit§',
regulations including the
fixation sf submits that the
contentiezis stating that the age limit
prescribed liWitl:o1itiA's:itl:._srity of law, is baseless. He has
V 33130 ccglitemdedi ti1atithei'1_setitioner having chosen to apply for
of the advertisement issued and the
'V wherein the age limit of 20 years was
i specifically' znefitioned, cannot be permitted to challenge the
i' ef..thc eligfiaility criteria regarding the age limit at this
A %,,'mg'e. Effie further submits that there cannot be any estoppel
'against the statute or a statutory rule made and the
iiespondents were well Within the right to cermct the mistake
inadvertently committed in providing admission to the pefitioner
7% .
-vcc’)nsi1i::£ati;:i’11 is,-
W? 8058/w
10
in the 1″ rcspondent~University which was basically an ermr
that has crept in due to inadvertence and due to computer
relaxed errors. In support of his contentions, he hasfiplfiaocd
reliance on the folbwing judgmcnts.
xesammuxrs.
cw s.L.sreuau:r & Ora. vs x.1I:m:m¢’f_'” 9 ”
my mod Corporation of *, and rAnr¢_ Kean’
Yadav andanr. rqorua;-Hy: 531 —
(in; Union qf 'flaky. my-éudm singh rqao:-mt in 2003.3; '- : _ (9) tI.P.Pub!£c Services ~ in 19945) sec 130. 8. Having for the paxtics and in
the light of tl:Vi¢a..ainat¢vi1£z;u1V9s._v¢3:1;.:_’i*ecord, the question that falis for
~ _ 1-” rmpondent was justified in issuing
A ._ informing the petitioner that
eiigible to take adrnission in the 15′
réSp«5§:¢lént~Uru’versity ?
«9I ~» . petitioner had taken a contention urfing that the
of age limit of ‘.20 years as on 1″ July of the year of
__4’z§dInission (2008 in the instant case) wax} made without
@
WP 8058/68
16
Bangaiore, for the year 2008 and being thus guided and
assumd made a critical choice of his career and did not prepare
for engineexing admission and prepared oniy for Law adnfisssion,
no such assurance or pmmise is made by the reefioniieixts
tickling out that he would be admitted for the law
the yea; 2008. Reliance placed i.’!}”‘”‘i–hC .iiOi”il.i’.»tli1e
consolation letter by the Vice Chanceiioref
University on 16.06.2007 vide qaaiiet V L’
as an assurance or promise __’AI’hAeirefore the
pefitioner cannot plead estbgiml (>33. also. The reliance
placed on the judgment qf”r1iisjjr:¢:u:’t__zegxai~i;¢d'”i;1 Bella:-,y Steel
and ways reported in 12.12 zoos
KAI? 2441 eat ‘the facts of the case.
_»Fi1r eforeiizaentimied reasons, the petition being devoicl
i”Qf’n:1e1its to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
._i?!”Owe§feijl the pzesent case, it has to be observed that
petitioiitieriwae umiecessarily put to hardship, agony and
diseyfioinhnent due to the mistake committed by the 1″
___”‘1.*e:s1i;)n.dent in giving him provisional admission and thezeaflex:
‘V V _ ii” him that he was not eligibie for being admitted to the
15* respondent»-University. It is on account of this mistake on
%
KKV
WP 8058/05
17
the part of the 1″ mspondem-institution that the petitioner had.
to appmach this Court. He has suficmd fmancial loss in
prosecuting this lifigation. It is 3130 surprising to 11otc.’s*L1i{‘é1t»_ihVe
respondents 1 85 2 could commit such glaring V.
have lead to such. consequences of Hg¢:_1:zem_’i;iiig’ —- ” ”
aspirations in the young mind only “£():flr€S’:ii}t
disappointment later. in the: Ii; it
appropriate to award a sum of Rs. as pafyabic by
the 19* respondent to the weeks fmm
3d/:3
Iudg3
today.