K.S. Lodha, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner Dilip Kumar had passed his First Year T. D. C. Examination in 1983 obtaining 266 marks out of a total of 450 marks. He applied for admission to the First Year B. E. Degree Course (sic) as the University of Jodhpur conducted the Pre-Engineering Test (for short 'P. E. T.') for admission to that class and the test was held in 1983. The petitioner appeared at that test and was called for interview. The letter of interview was issued on 24-8-83 fixing the date of interview as 6-9-83. In that letter vide column C(4), the students were warned that they have to produce the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination of 1983by 14-7-83 (sic). The case of the petitioner was that the original mark-sheet issued by the University had been submitted by him for revaluation and that was not available with him on that account on 14-7-83. However, the revised mark-sheet was issued to him on 18-8-83 and he produced the same before the Interview Board at the M. B. M. Engineering College on 6-9-83 the dale fixed for his interview. He was, however, not admitted and according to him, the reason for the refusal of admission was that the mark-sheet of the First Year T.D.C. had not been submitted by him by 14-7-83. His further contention is that candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner in the P. E. T. were, however, admitted and thus he was discriminated against. He, therefore, approached this Court on 13-9-83 for a writ of mandamus directing the non-petitioners, the University of Jodhpur and the Dean, Faculty of Engineering to give admission to the petitioner in the First Year B. E. Degree Course of the University of Jodhpur A show cause notice before admission was issued to the non-petitioners on 13-9-83. An application for stay was also filed by the petitioner and on that application on that day, an order was made that in the meantime, one seat will be kept vacant to accommodate the petitioner in the First Year of the Faculty of Engineering. The University of Jodhpur then filed an application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution for getting the stay order vacated and it was pleaded that all the seats of the First Year Engineering for that year had already been filled in before the stay order was passed. In that application, it was, inter alia, also alleged that the Centralised Admission Committee was a necessary party, which had not been impleaded. In view of this application, the learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application for amending the writ petition by impleading the Convenor, Centralised Admission Committee, University of Jodhpur and the Registrar, P.E.T., University of Jodhpur as non-petitioners. That application was allowed vide order dt. 7-2-84 and the amended cause title was fifed in April by the petitioner. No reply to the original writ petition or the amended one has been filed on behalf of any of the non-petitioners. A second application for stay was filed by the petitioner on 25-7-84 alleging that the year 1983 was out and now fresh admissions are going to be made for the First Year Engineering for the year 1984 and, therefore, one seat may be kept vacant for the petitioner for the First Year B. E. Degree Course for the year 1984. This application was opposed on behalf of non-petitioners 3 and 4 by filing a reply. In that reply, it wasstated that the petitioner had failed to furnish the original mark-sheet of the First Year TD ,C. the qualifying examination by 14-7-83 and, therefore, he was not entitled to admission and admission was rightly refused to him. It was also stated in the application under Article 226(3) 'That it is not disputed by the petitioner that he did not submit his mark-sheet by 14-7-1983 or even before he appeared for interview on 6-9-1983.' However, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners that the original mark-sheet of First Year T.D.C. Examination of 1983 had been produced by the petitioner before the authorities concerned on 6-9-1983.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.
3. The case was initially listed for orders but with the agreement of the parties, arguments had been heard on the main petition itself.
4. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners raised a number of preliminary objections. 1 shall, therefore, first deal with them. His first objection was that the petitioner had claimed a writ of mandamus for admission to the First Year B. E. Degree Course for the year 1983. However, that academic year is already over and the writ petition has, therefore, become infructuous. In this connection, it was further contended that on 13-9-83, the petitioner had obtained an ex parte order for one seat being reserved for the petitioner in that year. The non-petitioners had filed an application under Article 226(3) stating that the admissions to that class had already been over before this order was passed and there was no vacancy left, still the petitioner did not get the writ petition heard at an early date nor amended it but dragged it on and allowed the academic year 1983 to pass. He, therefore, now cannot claim any relief in this writ petition.
5. The second objection was that when the P.E.T. for the year 1984 was held, the petitioner appeared at that test but did not come in the merit. He, however, suppressed this fact and moved an application, a second application, for stay praying that one seat may be kept vacant for him in the First Year B.E. for the year 1984. He is thus guilty of suppressing material facts and on this count alone, his writ application is liable to be dismissed.
6. The third objection was that the petitioner did not implead the Centralised Admission Committee or the Registrar of the P.E.T. as parties to the writ petition in the beginning but when an objection in this respect was raised by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners 1 and 2, an application was moved to implead them as parties in Feb. 1984 and they were actually impleaded after the order of the Court in April, 1984. No relief could have been granted to the petitioner against the University of Jodhpur or the Dean, Faculty of Engineering, University of Jodhpur, who were originally impleaded as parties and, therefore, when the other two non-petitioners were impleaded then alone the writ petition must be deemed to have been properly filed but that was too late. The admission was refused to the petitioner in Sept. 1983 and he filed the proper writ application only in April, 1984and thus he is guilty of laches and on that account also, he is not entitled to any relief. I have given my careful consideration to these objections but in the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find force in any of them. As a matter of fact, answers to these objections are furnished by various authorities of the Supreme Court itself and, therefore, instead of considering these objections in detail, I shall dispose them of by reference to some of those authorities. It is true that initially the prayer in the writ petition was for a writ of mandamus for admitting the petitioner to the B.E. First Year of the year 1983. It is equally correct that that academic year has now gone by and fresh admissions to the First Year B.E. for the year 1984 have now to be made. It is also undisputed that the petitioner had appeared at the PE.T. of 1984 and did not get a place in the merit list but that does not necessarily either make the writ petition infructuous or debar the petitioner from relief. In Dr. Vinay Rampal v. State of J. &K.;, 1983 UJ (SC) 825 : (AIR 1983 SC 1199), in almost similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: --
'The petitioner was eligible for admission in the subject of General Medicines for MX), degree in the year 1981 according to qualifications and other requirement set out in the advertisement. The sands of time have run out which is inevitable in judicial process. What relief can the Court grant to person unjustifiably refused admission. Post-Graduate qualification in Medical discipline is highly coveted. We must therefore find a fresh answer.'
Mr. Altaf Ahmed told us that the new academic year is to commence some time in September. We accordingly direct that the petitioner shall be admitted in the subject of General Medicine for MD. degree without any further test or selection during the current academic year which will commence not later than middle of Sept. 1983.'
Therefore, even if the academic year 1983 for the B.E. First Year to which admission was sought by the petitioner has gone by, if the petitioner was wrongly refused admission, relief can still be granted to him as has been held by the Supreme Court. Similarly, this relief has to be granted to him for admission in the next academic year without any test or facing any selection board and, therefore, even if the petitioner had appeared in the P.E.T. 1984and did not come in the merit list, he cannot be debarred from admission only on that account because he is entitled to admission on the basis of his performance in the earlier year when his admission was allegedly wrongly refused. The fact that the petitioner did not bring this fact to the notice of the Court when he moved a second application for stay also, in my opinion, does not come in his way inasmuch as this cannot be said to be a suppression of fact with the intention of deceiving the Court. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners had placed strong reliance upon Nand Lal v. State T. A. T., Rajasthan, 1977 Raj LW 500 : (AIR 1978 Raj 67) and University of Rajasthan v. Dr. Rukmani Vaish, 1982 Raj LR 164 in support of his contention that the petitioner having suppressed a material fact is debarred from claiming any relief by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court but as already stated above, in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner cannot be held guilty of improperly suppressing any material fact and, therefore, these authorities are of no avail to the non-petitioners.
7. So far as the third objection goes, it may at once be stated that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of any laches in not impleading the non-petitioners 3 and 4 and as a matter of fact, the cause for this also lies at the door of the non-petitioners 1 and 3. The information booklet for the P. E. T., 1983 was published by the University of Jodhpur and in that book-let, the instructions of the Centralised Admission Committee were published. Now the petitionermust naturally have thought that the University of Jodhpur was the authority who had conducted the P. E. T., 1983 and it would be enough to implead the University of Jodhpur as also the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering as parties to the application. However, when an objection was raised about the absence of the Centralised Admission Committee and the Registrar, P. E. T., the petitioner at once came forward and amended the writ petition. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner did not act diligently. In any case, as is clear from the non-petitioners' own stand that admissions to First Year B.E. for the year 1983 had already been completed before the stay order was obtained by the petitioner on 13-9-1983 and, therefore, nothing would turn out in that order. Now as relief is sought for admission to B.E. for the year 1984 these parties are already before the Court. Looking to all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the delay in impleading non-petitioners 3 and 4 cannot be fatal to the present writ petition.
8. Now coming to the merits of the matter, it may at once be stated that the petitioner had wrongly been refused admission to the First Year B.E. As already stated above, it is an admitted case that the petitioner had been called for an interview on 6-9-83 vide Annexure P5 dt. 24-8-83. In that letter issued by the University of Jodhpur, he was directed to produce the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination of 1983 by 14-7-83. It is to be noted that the date had already expired even before this letter was issued to the petitioner on 24-8-83 and, therefore, he could not have produced the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination of 1983by 14-7-83. The earliest he could have produced this mark-sheet in pursuance of the letter Annexure P5 was 6-9-83and admittedly on that day, he had produced that mark-sheet. In these circumstances, there was absolutely no justification for the University to refuse him admission when he had already been found eligible for admission as otherwise he would not have been called for interview.
9. Much capital was sought to be made out of the fact that all the students who were called for interview at the first instance had been required to produce the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination of 1983 by 14-7-83and the petitioner should also have filed the sameby that date. It was candidly conceded by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners that in issuing the letter Ex. P 5, a mistake had been committed by the University. He explains that the letters in the form 7 Annexure 15 as a matter of fact, had been issued to all those candidates, who had been called for interview on 15-7-83, Out of those candidates, some did not appear or had left after taking admission and some vacancies, therefore, fell, whereupon it was decided that some more students may be called for interview and admitted and, therefore, another set of letters for interview were issued but unfortunately the same forms with old dale 14-7-83 were issued to them also although these letters were issued on 24-8-83 and the date of interview was 6-9-83. In any case, this contention if accepted would go against the University rather than against the petitioner. It is quite clear that it was on account of this lapse on the part of the University that the present petitioner could not produce the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination of 1983 before 6-9-83. He, of course, could not have produced it before 14-7-83 because by that time, no letter of interview had been issued to him. In the book-let of information for P.E.T.. 1983, R, 5 provided, inter alia, 'No candidate shall be considered for admission unless he/she has submitted the result/mark-sheet of the qualifying examination by the prescribed date which will be indicated in the interview letter for admission'. From this rule, it is abundantly clear thahat unless a student received interview letter, he could not have produced the mark-sheet and it was for the University to indicate the date on or before which the mark-sheet had to be furnished. Here interview letter had been issued to the petitioner only on 24-8-83 specifying the date for bringing of the mark-sheet which had already expired, the petitioner could not produce the mark-sheet only on the date, or any other date before he was called for interview because no other date after 24-8-83 had been specified by the University. It may, of course, be stated here that the only ground on which admission has been refused to the petitioner was that he did not produce the mark-sheet of the qualifying examination of 1983 by 14-7-83. The University has not come out with any other ground as a matter of fact, in the reply to the second stay applicationalso, it was stated that the petitioner had failed to file the mark-sheet by 14-7-83 and, therefore, he was not entitled for admission. As already stated above, it is quite wrong on the very face of it and, therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the admission had wrongly been refused to the petitioner. He is, therefore, entitled to the relief claimed and in view of the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court he can still be admitted to the First Year B.E. of the year 1984. I am not oblivious of the fact that the seats in the First Year B.E. may be limited and there may be some difficulty in admitting the present petitioner for the year 1984. However, in the first place, the admission to First Year B.E. have not yet been completed and the petitioner can be accommodated. Even otherwise, if need be the number of seats can be increased to accommodate the petitioner. In this connection, I would only refer to the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College,Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, 1983 UJ (SC) 439 : (AIR 1983 SC 580), which are as under:--
'It is strange that in all such cases, the authorities who make admission by ignoring the rules of admission contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of students. An additional plea available in regard to Medical College is that the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional seats. We cannot entertain the submission. Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified. The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made.'
10. I, accordingly, allow this writ petition and direct that the petitioner Dilip Kumar shall be admitted to the First Year B.E. for the Year 1984, as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, I shall make no order as to costs.