Appearing for the respondents, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh said that the petitioner-students were actually in the wait-list of prospective admissions to the University.
He added that a counter-affidavit had been submitted to point out that the institute lacked the necessary buildings and faculty in view of which the decision to cancel admission was also taken.
Justice Kaul at the outset remarked,
“It is an unfortunate case, suddenly you pull the carpet from under their feet.“
He added that the respondents had raised the expectations of the students first, and now the Court would have to set that right. Justice Kaul added that the respondents’ counter-affidavit was “very very iffy” and did not evoke any confidence.
“A counter affidavit has been filed by the National Law University, Tripura trying to paint a picture as if lack of faculty and infrastructure are the reasons of cancelling admissions. It is a fact that only the reason of State domicile quota was cited. The second aspect is completely missing from the communications sent. Admissions in pursuance to the CLAT process were completed,” the Bench noted in its order.
Source: Barandbench
