Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1986 DIGILAW 798 (ALL)

Ashfaq Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh

1986-10-15

K.P.SINGH, R.M.SAHAI

body1986
JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - In the above - noted two writ petitions the petitioner in each case has prayed for quashing Annexure VI attached with each writ petition whereby it has been communicated to each petitioner that his admission to B.V. Sc. and A. H. Programme will not be possible. 2. The petitioner in each case is a State Government employee and is serving as Live Stock Development Assistant, on 28-6-1985 State of Uttar Pradesh had requested the Govind Vallabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology Pantnagar, Nainital for reservation of seats in the B.V. SC. and A.H. Programme in the aforesaid University for the live stock development assistants nominated by it. It appears that the aforesaid University accepted the request of the State of U.P. and reserved five seats as is evident from Annexure attached with the writ petition. In the aforesaid letter dated 8-11-1985 the minimum qualification for the candidates to be nominated has been indicated as below :- (1) pass in High School and Intermediate (Science with Biology or Agriculture) Examination. (2) pass in two year Livestock Supervisor/Livestock Development (3) Five years filed experience as Livestock Supervisor/Livestock Development Assistant or in a higher capacity. 3. The petitioners in the above - noted two writ petitions along with three others were nominated by the State of U.P. as is evident from Annexure II attached with the writ petition. Through Annexure III dated 1-1-1986 the Director of Animal Husbandre, U.P., Lucknow has been communicated that the petitioners should not be amiited to the course and the other three nominated by the State of U.P. along with the petitioners had only been approved. Though Annexure IV attached with the writ petition the Director of Animal Husbadry has conveyed to the University that it has been decided through letter No. 3046/ Ka Va 1-1-1986 13 - 16/31/77, dated 6-8-1986 that [the minimum qualification experience to the course of B.V. Sc. and A. H. Programme is as follows :- 1- Ms<+ o"kZ dk izf'k{k.k izkIr fd;s gq;s i'kq/kku fodkl lgk;dks ds fy;s 7 o"kZ dk larks"ktud foHkkxh; lsok dk vuqHkoA 2- nks o"kksZa dk izf'k{k.k izkIr fd;s gq;s i'kq/ku fodkl lgk;dksa ds fy;s 5 o"kZ dk larks"ktud foHkkxh; lsok dk vuqHkoA 4. In view of the above decision a request has been made that the petitioner in the above - noted writ petitions be admitted to the above course. In view of the above decision a request has been made that the petitioner in the above - noted writ petitions be admitted to the above course. Annexure V, a letter of Secretary, Uttar Pradesh administration address to Kul Sachiv, Govind Vallabh Pant Krishi Avam Prauyogik Vishwa Vidyalaya, Pant Nagar, District Nainital also indicates that a request has been made to the University for admitting the nominated persons. According to the aforesaid letter the petitioner in each case noted above has minimum experience. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above the learned counsel for the petitioners in the above noted writ petitions contends that opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 are refusing admission to the petitioners arbitraily, unfairly and illegally. Therefore, Annexure VI should be quashed and a direction be made to the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to admit the petitioners in B.V. Sc. and A. H. Programme Degree Course in the Govind Vallabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Nainital. 6. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has opposed the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the minimum qualification has been laid down by the Academic Council of the University, therefore, it is not possible for the University to admit the petitioners to the B.V. Sc. and A. H. Programme Degree Course in the University. According to him even if the qualification regarding experience of the petitioners is equal to the minimum qualification laid down by Academic Council, unless the Academic Council treat the qualification of the petitioners equal to the minimum qualification laid down by it the petitioners cannot be admitted to the course desired by them. He has emphasised that the University is not bound to accept the decision of the Government regarding the minimum qualification nor has any relaxation been made in that regard by the Academic Council. He has also invited our attention to Annexure II to the counter affidavit of M.C. Pant, Assistant Registrar of the University and has emphasised that the Government has sent the names of other four persons, namely Sarv/Shri Harish Chandra Joshi, Gauri Shankar Visht, Pannualal Yadav and Kundan Singh Negi, therefore, the names of the petitioners have been dropped and new names have been sent, therefore, the claim of the petitioners is founded and the writ petition Should be dismissed. 7. 7. In rejoinder the learned counsel for the petitioners in the above two writ petitions, has drawn our attention to Annexures R. A. I. and R. A. II. He has emphasised before us that in the opinion of Uttar Pradesh the petitioners are well qualified for admission to B.V. Sc. and A.H. Programe because their names have been recommended for admission to the aforesaid Course in Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Avam Praudyogik Vishwa Vidyalaya. Mathura Prangan. In this way it has been emphasised that the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 are taking unfair, illegal and arbitrary attitude towards the claim of the petitioners. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and we have gone through the documents attached with the writ petition, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavits. In paragraph 21 of the writ petitions it has been indicated that the U.P. State has nominated the persons keeping in view the eligibility and qualifications. The University should consider their claims under that head because they would not be required 10 take entrance examination. From the materials on record we are not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that only a request has been made regarding the qualification of the petitioners and no decision has been taken by the Government. A perusal of Annexures IV and V attached with the writ petitions indicates that the qualification possessed by the petitioners is equal to qualifications laid down by the Academic Council in Anuexure 1 attached with the writ petition, By now Govind Vallabh Pant University has not taken final decision about the admission to the course sought by the petitioners. It is also not very clear that the Academic Council of the University ever applied it a mind to the decision given by the Government and Director of Animal Husbandry in Annexures IV and V attached with the writ petitions. Therefore, we have a feeling that the authorities have not applied their mind to the relevant material and they are not acting fairly in taking the stand that it is not possible for them to admit the petitioners to the course desired by them. 9. Therefore, we have a feeling that the authorities have not applied their mind to the relevant material and they are not acting fairly in taking the stand that it is not possible for them to admit the petitioners to the course desired by them. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that names of the petitioners in the above - noted two writ petitions have been dropped by the Government and fresh names have been sent, therefore, the writ petition Should be dismissed is not acceptable to us in tire circumstances of the present case. It is true that four names had been sent by the Government later on excluding the petitioners with a view to satisfied the qualifications laid down by the Academic Council but there is nothing to suggest that the claim of the petitioners in the about noted writ petitions has been negatived by the Government. Rather, Annexure RA - L attached with the rejoinder affidavit indicates that in the opinion the Government - the petitioners are eligible for admission to the course of B.V. Sc. and A. H. programme, therefore, their names have been sent to the Chandra Shekhar Azad Krishi Avam Praudyogik Vishwa Vidyalaya, Mathura for admission to B.A. Sc. and A.H. Degree Course. In our opinion, the claim of the petitioners is not being dealt with by the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 fairly. We have grave doubts whether the Academic Council of the University or the Vice-Chancellor has given due consideration to the decision of the Government regarding the qualification decided by the U.P. Administration regarding the eligibility and qualification of the candidates for admission to B.V. Sc. and A. H. Programme. 10. In view of of the above discussions we think that Annexure VI attached to the writ petition should be quashed. According to us the qualification of the petitioner in each writ petition is equal to the qualification laid down by the Academic Could in Annexure I in view of the decision of the U.P. Administration, hence there is no reason why the petitioners should not be admitted to the course desired by them. 11. In the result the writ petition Succeed and the impugned Annexure VI attached to the writ petitions is hereby quashed and a direction is issued to opposite - parties Nos. 11. In the result the writ petition Succeed and the impugned Annexure VI attached to the writ petitions is hereby quashed and a direction is issued to opposite - parties Nos. 2 and 3 to admit the petitioner of each writ petition mentioned above to the course desired by him. There would be no order as to costs.