C.K. THAKKER, C.J.

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside admission given to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 by Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar H.P.K.V.V., respondent No. 1 herein, on 7/08/2001 in B.Sc. (Agriculture) B.V.Sc. and AH course and for further direction to give admission to the petitioner on the basis of merits.

(2.) The case of the petitioner was that the first respondent-University issued a prospectus for admission to B.Sc. (Agriculture) B.V.Sc. and AH course for the Sessions 2001-02. The petitioner applied for admission against 30 seats as also for self-financing seat before the last date of receipt of application. On 24/06/2001, the petitioner appeared in the Combined Entrance Test. A notification was published on 21/07/2001 declaring the result of Combined Entrance Test in daily edition of Indian Express, copy of which is annexed to the petition. The petitioner was qualified at the Combined Entrance Test as she had secured 121 marks out of 150 marks. On 23/07/2001, the petitioner submitted an application for paid/self financing seat in prescribed pro forma. On 30/07/2001, the petitioner appeared before Committee for getting admission under the self-financing/paid seat.

(3.) A Notification was issued by the first respondent-University, inter alia, stating therein that the candidates whose particulars were mentioned, were selected for admission and they were required to remain present. Similarly, certain candidates were placed in the Waiting List in order of merit and they were advised to report in person to the respective Deans of the Colleges on the date given against each programme latest by 2.00 p.m. on 7/08/2001 to check up about the availability of vacant seats. The candidates were required to enter their names in the register kept in respective Colleges and sign it indicating date and time of their reporting. It was also mentioned that vacancies will be filled in categorywise on merit from the candidates who reported by 2.00 P.M. They were also asked to deposit fees and get themselves registered on the same date by 5.00 P.M.

(4.) In the note, it was stated as under :

"Note : Time schedule mentioned above is not relaxable under any circumstances. In case seats remain vacant/fall vacant in terms of 4.23 of Undergraduate Prospectus on Aug. 27, 2001, the candidates who could not be admitted (both from select and waiting lists) may again ascertain chance of their admission by reporting in the College concerend at 10.00 A.M. This is subject to available of seats. The vacant seats will be offered to the candidates who present themselves in person in order of inter se merit and in accordance with academic regulations. Admission procedure for these seats, if any will be the same as prescribed for waiting."

(5.) It was the case of the petitioner that she was neither informed nor wide publicity was given the notification except by publication in "Indian Express" and "Divya Himachal" and the petitioner never knew that she was to report latest by 2.00 PM on 7/08/2001. It was also her case that three persons, namely, Om Prakash, D. K. Awasthi and Smt. Lalita Devi were authorised by her guardian to be present before the Admission Committee on 7/08/2001 and they were present throughout before the Admission Committee from 10.00 AM onwards and had impressed upon the Admission Committee that the petitioner would be available before 5.00 PM. It was further case of the petitioner that she made herself acompanied by her mother Smt. Veena Pathania available before the Admission Committee at 2.00 PM and requested the authorities that her name be considered for admission as she figured at Serial No. 3 in the Waiting List but the authorities did not pay any heed and admission was not given to her. Hence, the petition.

(6.) Notice was issued pursuant to which the respondents (except respondents Nos. 2 and 3) appeared. Affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of first respondent-University as also by one of the contesting respondents Ms. Deepti Vaidya (respondent No. 4 herein).

(7.) We have heard Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. K. Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

(8.) In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of first respondent-University, it was stated that the Waiting List of the candidate for B.V. Sc. and A.H. course was notified on 4/08/2001. It was stipulated in the concluding para thereof that the candidates must report in person in the College of Vety. and Animal Science, Palampur on 7/08/2001 by 2.00 P.M. A copy of the Notification is annexed as Annexure R-1 to the reply. It was also stated that the notification was published in "Divya Himachal" as well as in "Indian Express". The deponent stated that the petitioner failed to report in person in the College by 2.00 p.m. On 7/08/2001 and consequently, she could not put her signature in the attendance register maintained for the purpose. The register was closed at 2.00 p.m. by the Committee constituted for the purpose and those candidates who were present up to 2.00 p.m. were admitted and the petitioner could not be admitted. A copy of the relevant page of the register is also annexed to the affidavit. The notification at Annexure R-1 dated 4/08/2001 refers to Waiting List and in the self-financing/paid seats (Himachal), name of petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 3. Name of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 have been shown at Sr. No. 4, 5 and 6, respectively.

(9.) The notification then states as under:

"The above candidates are requested to report in person in the College of Vety. and Animal Sciences, CSKHPKV, Palampur on 7-8-2001 by 2.00 p.m. to check-up about the availability of vacant seats in the category for which they are eligible as shown in the list above. They should also enter their names in a register maintained for the purpose in the College of Vety. and Animal Sciences and sign the same indicating date and time as a testimony of having reported in the college. In case, any candidate will be found eligible for admission, he/she will have to get deposit all the college and University fees and get him/herself formally registered in person on 7/08/2001 by 5.00 p.m. There shall not be any relaxation in this condition. The candidates may note that they can compete only for the vacancies falling in the categories for which they have been shown eligible in the above said list.

(10.) The relevant page of the register shows that it was closed at 2.00 p.m. and names of students who remained present up to 2.00 p.m. have been included. In token of their presence, they have signed the Register. The name of the petitioner does not find place in the register. It was, therefore, submitted that since the petitioner did not remain present in person, she cannot make a grievance and the admission given to respondents No. 2 to 4 cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to law and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

(11.) Respondent No. 4 has also filed affidavit-in-reply reiterating what was stated by the first respondent-University.

(12.) Mr. Rajiv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as held by the Supreme Court in several cases, including the leading case in Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 1 SCC 645 : (AIR 1993 SC 2178), admission should be given only on the basis of merits. Since the petitioner was more meritorious than respondents No. 2 to 4, she ought to have been granted admission considering the rank obtained by her. It was also submitted that the crucial or essential date was not 7/08/2001 as contended by the respondent-University but 30/07/2001 when Combined Entrance Test was conducted. It was, therefore, imperative on the University to give admission only to those students who had cleared Combined Entrance Test and by placing them on the basis of rank obtained by them. The counsel also urged that a hyper technical view was taken by the University that since the petitioner was not present on 7/08/2001 up to 2.00 p.m., her case could not be considered. According to the counsel, first of all, it was factually incorrect. But even if this Court is of the opinion that there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in reaching the College, the merit should not have suffered. A provision to report by 2.00 p.m. must be held to be directory or permissible and not mandatory or imperative. The counsel also argued that fixing of time of 2.00 p.m. was arbitrary and unreasonable and had no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The object being to grant admission to students on the basis of merit. It was contended that there was no proper publication of the notification by the University and only two newspapers, "Divya Himachal" and "Indian Express" published the notification, and the petitioner had not read those newspapers. It was enjoined on the respondent-University either to inform students individually or to get it circulated and published in any newspaper having very wide circulation. Since it was not done, the action deserves interference.

(13.) Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the first respondent-University, on the other hand, submitted that everything was stated in the Prospectus and all instructions have also been mentioned therein. It was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the students to take note of all instructions and to act accordingly. It was not necessary for the University to publish in any newspaper the result of Combined Entrance Test. It was only as an additional step that in two newspapers, "Divya Himachal" and "Indian Express" that the notification was published. According to the learned counsel, both the newspapers are having wide circulation in the State. The petitioner, therefore, was supposed to know either from the newspaper or by making necessary inquiries from the University/College authorities. If it was not done by her, she cannot find fault with the University when it was specifically stated that the students whose names were included in the Waiting List should report latest by 2.00 p.m. on 7/08/2001. Such action cannot be said to be arbitrary or otherwise unreasonable. The petitioner was not present, which is clear from the register maintained by the University and it did not include her name nor her signature. If in the light of the above circumstances admission was given to other students, such as action was strictly in conformity with the instructions and no objection can be raised against it.

(14.) Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has supported Mr. Thakur and stated that respondent No. 4 has already been admitted and is prosecuting her studies. It was in consonance with law and the petitioner has no right to raise any objection against admission to her. Though served, respondents No. 2 and 3 did not appear. (15.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, no case has been made out to interfere with the action taken by the first respondent-University in granting admission to respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. It is no doubt true that admission to professional courses should be given on the basis of merit. That, however, does not mean that if a more meritorious student does not come forward and commits default in putting up his/her claim, the University authorities are helpless. They have to consider cases of eligible students well in time to give admission and start courses. It is, therefore, open to the authorities to prescribe period within which action should be taken. In the instant case, it was specifically mentioned that students whose names were mentioned in the Waiting List must remain present at the College on 7/08/2001 latest by 2.00 p.m. To ensure that the students had remained present within the stipulated period and the appropriate action can be taken, the University authorities, in our opinion, rightly decided to keep a register wherein names of the students who report within time to their colleges should be included and they put their signatures. It is not disputed that neither the name of the petitioner nor her signature is found in the Register. The endorsement shows that it was closed at 2.00 p.m. Though at one stage, it was stated by the petitioner in the petition that she presented herself within time along with her mother, but the facts stated and averments made in the petition itself appear to be inconsistent and contradictory. In paragraph 13, at one place, it was stated that three persons were authorised by the petitioner's guardian to appear before the admission Committee on 7/08/2001 and they were present throughout from 10.00 a.m. onwards. It was also stated that they impressed upon the admission Committee that the petitioner would be available by 5.00 p.m. In the next sentence, however, it was asserted that the petitioner made herself available accompanied by her mother at 2.00 p.m.

(16.) In the affidavit-in-reply of the University, it was stated that the petitioner was not present up to 2.00 p.m. on 7/08/2001. A copy of the relevant page of the register is also produced. It is too much to conclude that though about 39 names have been mentioned, the University had not allowed the petitioner to put her name and to sign the register. It, therefore, clearly appears that the petitioner did not report up to 2.00 p.m. on 7/08/2001 for admission, though her name was placed in the Waiting List. If it is so, obviously, the petitioner cannot blame the University. Moreover, in the notification itself, it was mentioned that the time schedule will not be relaxed. (17.) Regarding publication of the result and notification, it was expected of the petitioner to make necessary enquiries. The petitioner, however, failed to do so. There is nothing in the Prospectus that the students will be individually informed. Moreover, according to the respondent, two newspapers, namely, "Divya Himac

hal" and "Indian Express" are having wide circulation in the State. If the petitioner has neither made necessary inquiries personally nor she had cared to read either of the two newspapers in which the notification was published, she must thank herself. Since up to 2.00 p.m., according to the University, the petitioner did not report, cases of other students were considered and were granted admission. Even otherwise, the case put forth by the petitioner that she never knew that she was to report latest by 2 p.m. on 7/08/2001 before the Admission Committee cannot be accepted in view of the fact that as per the petitioner herself, she had deputed as many as three persons to be present on her behalf before the Admission Committee. If she was not aware about the time by which she was to be present before the Admission Committee, there was no necessity for her for authorising or nominating three persons to be present on her behalf before the Admission Committee. It, therefore, cannot be concluded that the merit has suffered and the action of the respondent-University is vulnerable. The contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner, hence, cannot be upheld and the petition deserves to be dismissed. (18.) For the reasons aforesaid, no case has been made out by the petitioner against the action taken by the University. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged. (19.) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.