Full Text
Translation output
39#
%22.09.2011
Present: Mr.Vivek Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Latika Chaudhary for counsel for the respondents.
■N
+ W.P.(C) No. 6820/2011
*
Counsel for the respondents states that there is no control of the respondent no.l over the respondent no.2 which is a deemed university and similarly the respondent no.2 has no control over the respondent no.l. Counsel further submits that it is very difficult for these institutes to ascertain whether a particular student has taken admission in both the institutes. Counsel also submits that as per the laid down criteria after the last date of admission three months time is given to the student to withdraw from an institute and therefore, these institutes have no right to cancel admission of any student before the said deadline.
Counsel further submits that in any case the petitioner
2011:DHC:16613 whose all India rank was 27709 could not have made in either ofthe respondents institutes.
I Considering the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, I do not find any merit in the present petition.
However, the question of dual admission raised in the present petition being a larger issue is left open for the petitioner to raise the same in appropriate proceedings.
Dismissed. n
September 22,2011 mg
KAILASH GAMBHIR,J
2011:DHC:16613
%22.09.2011
Present: Mr.Vivek Sibal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Latika Chaudhary for counsel for the respondents.
■N
+ W.P.(C) No. 6820/2011
*
Counsel for the respondents states that there is no control of the respondent no.l over the respondent no.2 which is a deemed university and similarly the respondent no.2 has no control over the respondent no.l. Counsel further submits that it is very difficult for these institutes to ascertain whether a particular student has taken admission in both the institutes. Counsel also submits that as per the laid down criteria after the last date of admission three months time is given to the student to withdraw from an institute and therefore, these institutes have no right to cancel admission of any student before the said deadline.
Counsel further submits that in any case the petitioner
2011:DHC:16613 whose all India rank was 27709 could not have made in either ofthe respondents institutes.
I Considering the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, I do not find any merit in the present petition.
However, the question of dual admission raised in the present petition being a larger issue is left open for the petitioner to raise the same in appropriate proceedings.
Dismissed. n
September 22,2011 mg
KAILASH GAMBHIR,J
2011:DHC:16613
JUDGMENT