1 CGHC010167122022 2026:CGHC:28322 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2332 of 2022 1 - Rupesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Jagdish Dewangan, Aged About 29 Years R/o Dewanganpara, Ambagarh Chowki, Ward No. 11, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Registrar, Shahid Mahendra Karma University, Bastar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Vice Chancellor, Shahid Mahendra Karma, University, Bastar, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Principal, Govt. Kaktiya Postgraduate College, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate For State : Mr. Khulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer For Respondent(s) : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 08.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following relief(s):- “10.1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby setting-aside the impugned order (Annexure P/4). 10.2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination by issuing admit card in favour of petitioner and by conducting fresh examination for the petitioner. 10.3. That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has obtained a BE degree in Mechanical, during which he had also studied Mathematics as one of the subjects. On the said qualification, he was rightly granted admission to the M.Sc. course. However, despite his valid admission and continuation in the said course, the University has illegally denied him the opportunity to pursue the same. It is prayed for quashment of 3 Annexure P/4, whereby the petitioner's admission to the said course has been declined. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the University submits that the petitioner was granted admission due to a mistake during the COVID-19 period; otherwise, he was not entitled to admission to the M.Sc. (Mathematics) course. It is submitted that, for admission to the said course, a candidate must have Mathematics as the core/main subject at the graduation level, whereas, in the petitioner's BE (Mechanical) course, Mathematics was only an allied/foundation subject. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to admission to the M.Sc. postgraduate course unless he has completed his undergraduate degree in the respective subject. 4. Learned counsel for the State supported the submission made by the counsel appearing for the University. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 6. Considering the rival submission of the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was wrongly granted admission in M.Sc. Course as the petitioner has himself annexed a copy of the BE (Mechanical) course (Annexure P/1) wherein it is apparent that subject ‘Mathematics’ is an allied subject but not the core subject as such he should not get admission in the Postgraduate course for imparting education for M.Sc. Course, therefore, the 4 university has not committed any illegally in not issuing admit card in favour of the present petitioner. Thus, the present writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Further, counsel for the petitioner submits that, even the petitioner was wrongly granted admission to the said course, he cannot suffer for the mistake committed by the respondent University, as one academic year of the petitioner has been wasted on account of such error. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner may be granted liberty to avail such remedy as may be available to him under the law for claiming damages on account of the wrongful-doing of the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the university objected the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. 10. Also, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and without examining the issue as to whether the petitioner was rightly or wrongly granted admission to the M.Sc. Course, and also without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioner is at liberty to avail recourse of law before the appropriate forum available to him for claiming of his damages as alleged. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not ascertained any rights of any of the parties or authority. All questions are left open to be 5 considered and decided by the competent authority/forum in accordance with law, after examining the material that may be produced before it, without being influenced from any of the observations made by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs. Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Saxena