Hence this appeal.
On August 3, 1987, the Study Leave Committee recommended the case of the appellant for the grant of study leave and on August 14, 1987 the Syndi cate of the University accepted the said recommendation and granted study leave to the appellant for a period of three years with full pay.
Be that as it may, the application of the appellant was forwarded by the Professor and Head of the Mechanical and Engineering Department and the Dean, Faculty of Engineering, to the Vice Chancellor.
Admittedly, the application was made on November 14, 1987 after the last date for admission in the general seats had expired.
The Vice Chancellor, after companysidering the facts of the case, accepted the recommendation made by the Dean.
The case of the appellant is that it is the practice of the University to give admissions to teach ers by creating extra seats in addition to general seats.
Accordingly to the appellant, he was companymunicated with the decision of the Syndicate granting study leave to him on October 29, 1987 and soon thereafter he made the application for admission.
The appellant was, however, companymuni cated on February 9, 1988 with an order dated January 20, 1988 of the Dean directing that the appellants admission was put in abeyance until further orders.
The appellant also brought to the numberice of the Dean the said resolution and also the implementation of the same by admitting seven teacher candidates.
With these precedents in view, Shri C. Singhvi, Instructor, may be admitted to E. Degree companyrse as a very special case.
This was perhaps to encourage the Faculty Staff to improve their qualifications so that they serve the faculty in a better capacity.
Certain objections were raised by the Officer in Charge, Admissions, including the objec tion that the appellant had obtained less than 60 per cent marks in the Diploma Examination passed by him.
The Dean companysidered the said objections and recommended the case of the appellant for admission to the Vice Chancellor with the following observation However, there is another aspect of this case which deserves companysideration.
Pursuant to the said order, the appellant deposited the requisite fees on the same date and joined the classes from January 16, 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.5.88 of the Rajas than High Court in Writ Petition No.
The said resolution was accepted by the Academic Council of the University on March 25, 1970 and the Syndi cate in its turn approved the resolution of the Academic Council.
The University has in the past, allowed the teacher candi dates of this faculty, securing less than 60 per cent marks in their Diploma Examinations, admission to B.E. Course.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering of the Jodhpur Universi ty, putting in abeyance the admission of the appellant in the B .E. Degree Course till further orders.
The appellant deposited the requisite fees and started attending classes when he was told that his admission was directed to be put in abeyance until further orders without disclosing to him any reason whatsoever.
Being aggrieved by the said order dated January 20, 1988 of the Dean, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and, as stated already, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Indeed, the appellant also stated that he had obtained only 59.72 per cent of marks in his Diploma Examination.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Vice Chancellor referred the application back to the Dean observing that the Dean was companypetent to make admissions.
Thereaf ter, on January 16, 1988, the order for admission of the appellant was issued by the Dean, Faculty of Engineering, admitting the appellant in B.E. Second Year Engineering Course.
In may, 1987, the appellant submitted an application to the Study Leave Com mittee of the University of Jodhpur for study leave for three years enabling the appellant to prosecute his studies in the B.E. Degree Course.
It appears that both the University and the appellant proceeded on the assumption that the appellant had secured in the Diploma Examination less than 60 per cent of marks.
At this stage, it will be pertinent to refer to a reso lution dated September 21, 1970 passed by the Faculty of Engineering recommending that the teachers of the University should be granted leave so as to enable them to join the E. Degree Course as a regular candidate on a full time basis.
It is the case of the appellant that though for teacher candidates it was number necessary to secure 60 per cent of marks in the Diploma Course yet, according to the companyputation mentioned in the Admission Circular, the appellant had secured 60 per cent of marks.
The appellant is a diploma holder and is serving in the 1 N.M. Engineering College Faculty of Engineering , Jodhpur since 1976 as an Administrator Instructor.
183 of 1989.
Jain for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. Special leave is granted.
M. Lodha and R.B. Mehrotra for the Respondents.
521 of 1988.
The appellant was companymunicated with the decision of the Dean as approved by the ViceChancellor admitting him to the Second Year B .E. Course.
Heard learned Counsel for both parties.
It is the case of the appellant that in view of the practice of the University, as the teachers who are granted study leave are admitted by the creation of extra seats, the question of making applications after the last date for admission in the general seats is irrelevant.
The appellant made the application for admission after he had been companymunicated with the resolution of the Syndi cate granting leave on the recommendation of the Study Leave Committee.
Pursuant to the leave granted to the appellant, he made an application on November 14, 1987 for admission in the B .E. Degree Course.
The first objection that was raised to the admission of the appellant was that the appellant had number secured 60 per cent of marks which was the minimum requirement for admis sion.
