Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan — 1994 DIGILAW 800 (RAJ)

Honble MADAN, J. - This writ petition under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India was filed in this court by the above-named petitioner in the matter of Arts. 14,16, 19, 21, 29 & 30 of the Constitution read with Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 and Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 and in the matter of Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951 amended in 1968. (2) The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner who is a resident of District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, was allegedly involved in an incident on 18.5.1979 for which an F.I.R. was registered against him for offence under S. 302/148 I.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 25.5.1979 and after completing the investigation police filed a charge-sheet in the court for trial. After trial Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu found the petitioner guilty of offence of murder under S. 302/148 IPC and convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the said offence in Sessions Case No. 21/1979 to life imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide D.B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 144/80 which was dismissed by this court on 17.07.1980. There after the petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 17.7.1980 before Honble Supreme Court which too was dismissed. (3). The petitioner in this petition has contended that he has undergone actual sentence of 14 years, 4 months and 20 days as on 31.1.1994. The petitioner passed his secondary examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in Ist Division in the year 1979. Thereafter the petitioner passed higher secondary examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1981 in Ist Division while serving his sentence in Jail. He passed his B.A. examination from M.L. Sukhadiya University, Udaipur in 1984 in II Division and thereafter the petitioner passed his M.A. in Economics from Kota Open University in the year 1988. The petitioner also passed B.A. with additional English subject in the year 1990 from the Rajasthan University, Jaipur. Thereafter he also passed M.A. in Sociology from the Rajasthan University in 1991 and he also passed M.A. in English Literature in the year 1993. Thereafter the petitioner passed Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication from Kota Open University in Ist Division. The petitioner also passed B.A. with additional English subject in the year 1990 from the Rajasthan University, Jaipur. Thereafter he also passed M.A. in Sociology from the Rajasthan University in 1991 and he also passed M.A. in English Literature in the year 1993. Thereafter the petitioner passed Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication from Kota Open University in Ist Division. All these examinations, referred to above, were passed by the petitioner while serving his sentence in jail. (4). It has been further contended that for the academic year 1993-94 respondent No. 5, i.e., Officer-in-Charge P.T.E.T. 1993 Meharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer invited application from the prospective candidates to appear in Pre-Teachers Education Test (for short PTET) and the petitioner being eligible candidate submitted his application for appearing in the said test. The petitioner had preferred writ petition No. 275/93 earlier before the Apex Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for his release on parole so as to enable him to appear in PTET and the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the petition on 29.7.1993 and released the petitioner on parole so as to enable him to appear in the said test vide Annexure 1. It was keeping in view the academic career of the petitioner which may not suffer that the aforesaid order was passed by the Apex Court. Apex Court directed that the period of parole will be for the duration of the said examination plus another 3 days to enable the petitioner to return and surrender. (5). In pursuance of the above-direction of Honble Supreme Court the petitioner appeared in PTET and was declared successful. The petitioner was allotted S.S.G. Pareek T.T. College, Jaipur for training vide order Annexure 2 for PTET of 1993 (B.Ed.) and as per the mark-sheet the petitioner qualified the said examination. In pursuance of the above, the petitioner received provisional admission card dated 11.10.1993 from respondent No.5 in pursuance of which the petitioner was directed to deposit fee for admission to the said course in the college upto 21.10.1993 and the petitioner complied with the said requirement by depositing the requisite fee in the office of respondent No.5 vide Annexure 3. Soon thereafter the petitioner immediately submitted a representation to I.G. Prisons (respondent No.2), Rajasthan Jaipur on 11.10. Soon thereafter the petitioner immediately submitted a representation to I.G. Prisons (respondent No.2), Rajasthan Jaipur on 11.10. 1993 requesting him to allow the petitioner to deposit his fee in person along with relevant documents so as to comply with the conditions stipulated in the provisional admission-card dated 11.10.1993, vide Annexure 4. It was contended that the petitioner received information from a reliable source that his aforesaid representation to I.G. Prisons dated 11.10.1993 was rejected by the said authority with no formal communication of the rejected order. (6). Thereafter the petitioner also sent a registered letter to the Principal S.S.G. Pareek T.T. College, Jaipur (respondent No.4) narrating complete facts and circumstances in detail requesting him that in the event of the petitioners failure to deposit fee in person in time as per notification published in Dainik Navjyoti dated 11.10.1993, a seat be reserved for the petitioner and time for depositing fee be extended in his case but no reply was received by the petitioner in this regard from respondent No.4 vide Annexure 5. Simultaneously the petitioner also sent a representation to respondent No. 4 through Jail authorities on 15.10.1993 vide Annex. 6. It was further contended that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was accorded permission by the jail authorities to deposit fee in person on 25.10.1993 accompanied by the jail guard but the Principal, S.S.G. Pareek T.T. College, Jaipur for reasons best known to him had declined to accept the fee from the petitioner by putting a remark on his provisional admission card that last date for depositing the fee was 21.10.1993 which had since expired. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner by Shri Alok Sharma that no twith standing the brilliant academic attainments of the petitioner, the admission of the petitioner to PTET was arbitrarily denied by the respondents resulting in irreparable loss and injury and also seriously violating the petitioners fundamental right to Education guaranteed under Arts. 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India besides violating his right to life and liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution which includes right to receive education in any subject of his choice for which the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible. 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India besides violating his right to life and liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution which includes right to receive education in any subject of his choice for which the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments further contended that the petitioner is a triple M.A. along with triple other degrees having obtained highest academic qualifications as stated above and that he passed all his examinations while in jail. It was further contended that the petitioner was released on parole under the orders of Apex Court so as to enable the petitioner to appear in the PTET and other examination. (7). Looking to the qualifications, academic attainments and the conduct of the petitioner which was excellent in jail throughout, I am of the view that the petitioner should have been allowed to deposit his fee in the S.S.G. College in time and as a result of the objections raised by the respondents, academic career of the petitioner has seriously suffered. (8). By way of an analogy learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an identical case of one prisoner Tarachand which was recommended by the State Government to the Registrar, M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur whereby necessary permission was granted by the concerned authorities to the said prisoner to change his college at Jaipur so as to enable him to undergo the necessary training. It was contended that said Tarachand filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4287 of 1989 before this court and the said petition was allowed by the court which helped the said petitioner to complete his necessary training (Annex. 7). In this context it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought not to have been discriminated by the respondents and as a result of the said discrimination the academic career of the petitioner had been adversely affected thus violating petitioners right to equality before the law and equal protection of laws as guaranteed under Art. 14 and right to receive education in subject of his choice as per petitioners qualifications under Art. 29 of the Constitution of India. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to deposit his fee within time and by depriving the petitioner to appear in PTET has resulted in violation of Arts. 14 & 29 of the Constitution of India, since the petitioner has been deprived admission to B.Ed. course. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to another identical case of one Sumer Singh who was serving sentence at Open Camp Sanganer, Jaipur, was permitted to undergo training of B.Ed, presently whereas the petitioner who is similarly placed candidate has not been permitted the facility of undergoing necessary training for B.Ed. Course which has resulted in gross discrimination to the petitioner. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.4, Principal, S.S.G. Pareek T.T. College, Jaipur through jail authorities and also to I.G. Prison on 18.10.1993 and on 11.10.1993 narrating therein all facts and circumstances of the case. It was further contended that the respondents who had allowed the petitioner to deposit fee on 25.10.93 could very well have permitted the petitioner to deposit the fee in advance well before the due date and the situation had resulted only on account of inaction of the respondents for no fault of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner has already undergone 14 years, 4 months and 20 days of actual sentence as he was arrested on 25.5.1979 and therefore, he was held entitled for release on 25.5.1993 after serving more than 14 years actual sentence under the Prisoners Release and Parole Rules, 1958. It was submitted that as per the Prisons Rules, 1951 and amended Rules of 1968, a prisoner is permitted to continue his education at any school, college, polytechnic or in any other educational institution run by the Government or by any University established under the Act. (9). In reply to the writ petition the respondents have controverted the stand of the petitioner by contending that the petitioner has only undergone sentence of 13 years, 10 months and 11 days upto 31.1.1994. (9). In reply to the writ petition the respondents have controverted the stand of the petitioner by contending that the petitioner has only undergone sentence of 13 years, 10 months and 11 days upto 31.1.1994. The respondents have further contended in their reply that PTET course is a regular one and under rule 26A of Part-X section (ii) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules, 1951, a prisoner who is more than 21 years of age cannot be permitted to continue his study at any school/college or in other educational institution as a regular student, hence permission was not granted to the petitioner to join B.Ed. Course as a regular student since he was more than 21 years of age. However, in reply to para 6 of the writ petition the respondents have taken a specific stand in favour of the petitioner by admitting that the petitioner had appeared in PTET and after having been declared successful in PTET was allowed for training in S.S.G. Pareek T.T. College, Jaipur but since the M.D. University, Ajmer has not permitted the petitioner to join B.Ed. Course in terms of its letter dated 4/5.11.1993, the petitioner could not be given admission for the same. In para 8 of the reply the respondents have further admitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 11.10.1993 seeking permission to deposit fee in B.Ed. College in person and necessary permission was granted to the petitioner to deposit the fee on 21.10.1993 vide Annexure R/2. In the same breath the respondents have placed reliance upon Rule 26A of Part X of S. (ii) of Rajasthan Prisoners Rules, 1951 by taking a plea that since the petitioner was more than 21 years of age as on the relevant date, he could not be permitted to continue his studies as a regular student in any educational institution of his choice and it was for this reason that permission was declined to the petitioner to join B.Ed. Course which was available only to the regular students. The respondents have further controverted the stand of the petitioner that the denial of admission to the petitioner to join B.Ed. Course which was available only to the regular students. The respondents have further controverted the stand of the petitioner that the denial of admission to the petitioner to join B.Ed. Course as a regular student in S.S.G. Pareek College, Jaipur does not amount to any discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India nor it is violative of his fundamental right to receive education under Art. 29 of the Constitution from any recognized institution. (10). I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the relevant Rule 26A of Part X of S. (ii) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules, 1951 and also sub-rule (ii) of sub-section (b) of Ordinance 81 of the Rajasthan University Ordinance in Chapter XXII which deals with the admission of students to affiliated college in the Handbook of the University of Rajasthan Par II Vol. 1. (11). According to the above provision of the Ordinance 81 (a) of the University Ordinance student shall not be eligible for admission to a course of study for an examination unless he has passed the qualifying examination of the University or any other examination recognised for the purpose and possess such further qualifications if any, as may be prescribed by the Ordinance. Clause (ii) of sub-section (b) of the University Ordinance provides that any person who has been convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude, shall not be eligible for admission as a regular student in any of the department of the University/constituent colleges/affiliated colleges, but he shall be eligible for admission to a correspondence course in the Institute of correspondence studies or to appear at an examination as non-collegiate candidate where this facility is available. (12). The interpretation of the above provision is that any individual who stands convicted by a court of law of an offence involving moral turpitude shall not be eligible for admission as a regular student in any department of the University/constituent college affiliated college but at the same time he shall be eligible for admission to a correspondence course in the institute of correspondence studies or the said student can appear in the examination as a non collegiate candidate where such facility is available. It is an admitted case of the parties that B.Ed. It is an admitted case of the parties that B.Ed. Course is not a correspondence course but a regular course of study in any recognised institution of the State imparting such training for the said course. A glance at the rules also clearly reveals that prior to the admission to B.Ed. Course a candidate has to pass PTET as a condition of eligibility for appearing in the B.Ed. examination. (13). A perusal of the general guidelines regarding PTET 1993 for admission to B.Ed./ Shiksha Shastri Courses, session 1993-94 in various teachers training institutions in the State of Rajasthan, reveals that a competitive test is provided from amongst the candidates eligible for admission to B.Ed. Course and the candidates who are eligible as per rules have to compulsorily pass PTET arranged by the Meharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer in accordance with the rules as approved by the Government of Rajasthan and the Universities within the State. A reference may be made in this context to the guidelines regarding admission to PTET which are as under : — "Guidelines regarding admission to Pre Teacher Education Test: (1) In the very nature of competitive examination, no syllabus can be prescribed. It is an exercise to pick-up the best. However, the following pages contain a broad outline. (2) The PTET test will consist of one question paper containing four sections: A. Mental Ability. B. Teacher Attitude & Aptitude Test. C. General Awareness. D. Language Proficiency (Hindi & English) (i) All questions in the question- paper shall be objective type multiple choice question with four alternative answers (See sample questions under heading Model Question Paper). (ii) The paper will be set both in Hindi and English. (iii) The duration of the paper shall be 3 hours. (iv) Each question will carry 3 marks and the maximum marks in the paper shall be 600. (v) Full 3 marks will be awarded for each correct answer and 1 mark will be deducted for every wrong answer. In Section B, however, the answers will be scaled on a scale of 3 to -1 marks. This means that answer to each question will carry marks of 3,2,0 or -1." (14). (v) Full 3 marks will be awarded for each correct answer and 1 mark will be deducted for every wrong answer. In Section B, however, the answers will be scaled on a scale of 3 to -1 marks. This means that answer to each question will carry marks of 3,2,0 or -1." (14). With regard to first contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not completed the full terms of life imprisonment having undergone only sentence of 13 years, 10 months and 11 days upto 31.1.1994, it will be appropriate to mention that even if the period of remission is not taken into consideration for premature release of the petitioner, he had undergone more than 14 1/2 years sentence excluding the remission period of five years, nine months and fourteen days and if the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner as well as the remission period is taken into account together, he has undergone about 20 years of sentence as of date. Apart from this taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was released on parole in pursuance of the order, dated 29.7.1993 passed by the Apex Court for a period of six days so as to enable the petitioner to appear in the PTET test. This was not withstanding the objection of the respondents that a convict more than 21 years of age would not be permitted to continue his studies at any school/college or in other educational institutions as a regular student and the Apex Court had dispensed with the said requirement and had granted the requisite permission to the petitioner for appearing in the PTET for the academic year 1993 keeping in view the academic career of the petitioner which may not suffer in view of the above condition. (15). It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioner had appeared in the PTET test and was declared successful and after being successful the petitioner was allotted S.S.G. Pareek T.T. College, Jaipur for admission and training to B.Ed. Course, Hence I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible for B.Ed. Course, Hence I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible for B.Ed. Course because if the petitioner was not eligible then he would not have been given permission to appear in PTET and in view of the fact that the petitioner is a brilliant student, was declared successful for training to the said course after having qualified PTET entrance test. Having given admission on the one hand to the petitioner in S.S.G. Pareek T.T. College, Jaipur on the basis of good performance of the petitioner in the test, there was no justification for the respondents to take a contrary plea on the other hand that the petitioner was not eligible for B.Ed. Course because admission to the said course is open only to those students who can persue regular course of study and not to those who are eligible for correspondence course only. This attitude of the respondents is most arbitrary and discriminatory and deserves to be deprecated as it does not appeal to reason and not justifiable. In para 8 of their reply to the writ petition the respondents have contended that the representation. of the petitioner to respondent No.2 dated 11.10.1993 (Annexure 4) seeking permission to deposit fee in the B.Ed. College, was considered and permission was granted to deposit the fee vide order, dated 21.10.1993, but at the same time in view of Rule 26A of Part X of S. (ii) of Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951 which provides that a prisoner who is more than 21 years of age cannot be permitted to continue his education at any school/college or in other educational institution as a regular student and permission was therefore, not granted to the petitioner to join the B.Ed. Course as a regular student, since he was more than 21 years of age. This contention of the respondents has no rational basis and thus not justified. (16). Course as a regular student, since he was more than 21 years of age. This contention of the respondents has no rational basis and thus not justified. (16). A perusal of Rule 26A of the Rajasthan Prison Rules after interpreted in the context of the reply to the above contention of the petitioner, reveals that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was more than 21 years of age as on the date when he had appeared in PTET yet he was permitted to appear in the said test with the object of allowing the petitioner to continue his further educational pursuits like the B.Ed. This amounts to waiver of eligibility condition regarding minimum age of not more than 21 years for admission to B.Ed. Course by the respondents and hence the respondents should not be permitted to plead to the contrary. (17). In the present case it was on the basis of his successful performance in the PTET entrance test that the petitioner was given permission to deposit the fee vide order, dated 21.10.1993 of respondent No.4 for joining B.Ed. Course. It is however, unfortunate that notwithstanding the specific orders of the respondents (Annex. R/2) according requisite permission to the petitioner to deposit his fee for B.Ed. Course in accordance with the Rules, the petitioner was not permitted to do-so in time with the sole aim and object of the concerned authorities to deprive the petitioner of his right to admission to B.Ed. Course. The action of respondent No.4 in not allowing the petitioner to deposit the fee in time was entirely due to the lapse on the part of college authorities on. the ground that the petitioner was not eligible to deposit the fee, since the last date for depositing fee was 21.10.1993 which was not extended in petitioners case, I am of the opinion that the impugned action of the respondent is not only contrary to the rules of natural justice, equity and fair play besides being arbitrary and grossly unjust. Looking to the academic qualifications and the conduct of the petitioner, the respondents should have permitted the petitioner to deposit his fee in the college for B.Ed. Course in time and since the petitioner would not have otherwise suffered but for the belated actions of respondent No. 4. Looking to the academic qualifications and the conduct of the petitioner, the respondents should have permitted the petitioner to deposit his fee in the college for B.Ed. Course in time and since the petitioner would not have otherwise suffered but for the belated actions of respondent No. 4. I am further of the view that the impugned action of the respondents is a serious violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner to receive education which is guaranteed under Art. 29(ii) of the Constitution of India which provides that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution granted by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on the ground only of religion, race, caste or language or any of them. This Article thus offers full protection to all citizens to receive education in any educational institution subject only to the condition as stipulated in clause (i) of Act. 29 of the Constitution that concerned citizen should be eligible on the ground of having obtained the requisite academic qualification and after he has such qualifications which are required for joining a particular course of study, any citizen who seeks admission into any educational institution, should not be denied admission on the grounds of religion, race, caste or language or any of them. (18). If the admission is denied in educational institutions to any citizen of the country notwithstanding fulfilment of the requirement with regard to the academic qualifications or discrimination on any of the conditions referred to above, it will amount to a clear breach of fundamental right of the citizen to receive education. I am further of the opinion that right to receive education which is a fundamental right of the citizens has been seriously violated in the present case by denying the admission to the petitioner to B.Ed. Course notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was fully qualified and had also passed PTET as a condition of eligibility for admission to B.Ed. Course. (19). Course notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was fully qualified and had also passed PTET as a condition of eligibility for admission to B.Ed. Course. (19). A reading of Ordinance 81(b) (ii) makes it clear that for the purpose of admission of the student to affiliated colleges of the State University distinction has been made between those persons who have been convicted of criminal offence involving moral turpitude who shall not be eligible for admission as a regular students in any of the departments of the University/constituent college/affiliated college and those students who seek admission as non-collegiate candidates in the educational institution of correspondence studies or where such facility is available. Strange anomaly has been created by this rule resulting in gross discrimination between collegiate and non-collegiate students, since while in the case of a prisoner who has been convicted of a criminal offence involving moral turpitude, he shall not be eligible for admission as a regular student; whereas the same student can join in college as non-collegiate candidate where the facility of correspondence studies is available, thus resulting in gross discrimination between the two categories of students. In my opinion this rule is ultra-vires of the Constitution and deserves to be struck down as unconstitutional being violative of right to education guaranteed to the citizens of India under Art. 29 (ii) of the Constitution of India which envisages that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution granted aid by the State or receiving aid out of the State funds only on the grounds of religion, race, caste or language or any of them. I am further of the opinion that in order to judge the validity of any legislation the rule making authority must take into consideration not only the scope of enactment but also the purpose sought to be achieved by the same and that there has to be a reasonable nexus between the two. I am further of the opinion that in order to judge the validity of any legislation the rule making authority must take into consideration not only the scope of enactment but also the purpose sought to be achieved by the same and that there has to be a reasonable nexus between the two. In the present case there is no reasonable nexus between scope of enactment, i.e., Ordinance 81(b) (ii) of the University Ordinance and the purpose sought to be achieved by the same, since it is creating discrimination between collegiate and non-collegiate students by debarring admission to a person convicted of a criminal offence as a regular student; whereas the same rule permits such individual to join institution of correspondence studies as a non-collegiate student, thus resulting in gross discrimination between the two categories of studies. Reference may be made in this regard to services under the State particularly the Rajasthan Services of Engineering and Research Officers (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1954 and the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Services (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 which have almost been adopted in all the departments of the State. Rule 12 of the Service Rules, 1967 which deals with the character of a candidate for direct recruitment to service, provides that the character of a candidate for direct recruitment to the service must be such as will qualify him for employment in the service. A note has been appended just below the said rule which provides that a conviction by a court of law need not of itself involve the refusal of a certificate of good character. The circumstances of the conviction should be taken into account and if they involve no moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence or with a movement which has as its objects the overthrow by violent means of Government as by law established the mere conviction need not be regarded as a disqualification. If a conviction by court of law not involving moral turpitude is not a disqualification for joining the State Services, then it does not stand to reason that such conviction should be a disqualification for the student seeking admission as a regular student in the University, hence the circumstances of each case have to be judged on merits of the said case and there is no universal rule which should be applied in this regard to all the encases on the same footing. In Words and Phrases Permanent Edition 27A moral turpitude has been defined thus: "Moral Turpitude" is anything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals." "Act committed because of mere ignorance is not moral turpitude.". "Criminal acts which involve intentional dishonesty purpose of personal gain are acts involving moral turpitude." Moral Turpitude, as regards contribution between tort feasors, refers largely to moral character and state of mind, and known or intentional violation of statute may or may not show moral turpitude. The Blacks Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition moral turpitude has been defined thus: "The act of baseness, vileness, or the depravity in private and social duties which man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man. (State vs. Adkins, 40 Ohio App. 2d 473, 320 N.E. 2d 308, 311, 69 0.0 2d 416. Act or behaviour that gravely violates moral sentiment or accepted moral standards of community and is a morally culpable quality held to be present in some criminal offences as distinguished from others." In Concise Oxford Dictionary Seventh Edition the word Moral Turpitude is denied thus : "Baseness, depravity, vileness." In Law Lexicon Compiled and Edited by P. Ramanatha Aiyar (re- printed edition, 1987) moral turpitude is defined thus. "Anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principle, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow man, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man " "What constitutes moral turpitude, or what will be held such, is not entirely clear A contract to promote public wrong, short of crime, may or may not involve it. If parties intend such wrong, as where they conspire against the public interests by agreeing to violate the law or some rule of public policy, the act doubtless involves moral turpitude. When no wrong is contemplated, but is unintentionally committed, through error of judgment, it is otherwise. (Pullmans Palace Car C. vs. General Transp. Co. 65 Fed. 158, 161). Everything contrary to justice honesty, modesty, or good morals is done with turpitude, so that embezzlement involves moral turpitude." (20). When no wrong is contemplated, but is unintentionally committed, through error of judgment, it is otherwise. (Pullmans Palace Car C. vs. General Transp. Co. 65 Fed. 158, 161). Everything contrary to justice honesty, modesty, or good morals is done with turpitude, so that embezzlement involves moral turpitude." (20). Thus, it is clear from the above interpretation of the word moral turpitude given by various authors that every act of violence does not necessarily involve moral turpitude. Certain acts of violence or crimes may be committed unintentionally through error of judgment which will not constitute moral turpitude. In the facts of given case I am of the opinion that the petitioner who has already suffered complete actual terms of sentence of more than 14 1/2 years and has also earned remission from jail authorities on account of his good conduct in jail, deserves to be treated on a different footing, since but for his good conduct in jail he would not have earned. remission and because of his academic qualifications and for the reason having qualified PTET obviously implies that the petitioner wishes to devote rest of his career for teaching students so as to be a better and useful citizen for the society which he should not be deprived and that no embargo should be placed by the University or any affiliated college offering such education as an Instrumentality of State. We have to keep a note of the fact that the petitioner is highly qualified having achieved the distinction of Triple M.A. along with other requisite qualifications and it is more relevant and creditable in the context because he achieved this distinction while serving his sentence in jail. As on the date of filing the present writ petition in this court the petitioner had undergone the sentence of 13 years, 10 months and 11 days upto 31.1.1994 as per details mentioned in para 3 of the writ petition as under : **** TABLE **** Year Month Days (i) Under trial period 25.5.79 to 24.10.79 00 5 00 (ii) Sentence served 25.10.79 to 31.1.94 14 3 7 Total 14 8 7 Less Period of interim bails & emergency paroles 00 9 26 13 10 11 Earned remission : 5 9 14 Total 19 7 25 Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the petitioner should not be permitted to join B.Ed. Course because his past conduct involves moral turpitude, is not well sounded keeping in view the definition of moral turpitude given by various authors as referred to above, I am of the opinion that mere conviction by a court of law need not by itself be regarded as a disqualification for joining B.Ed. Course of study, particularly when the petitioner has already completed the term of sentence awarded to him besides having earned remission for his good conduct in jail. (21). Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that sub-rule (ii) of clause (b) of Ordinance 81 of the University Ordinance which deals with admission of students to affiliated colleges, deserves to be struck down being ultra-vires of Art. 29(ii) of the Constitution of India and being unconstitutional. (22). In the result, this writ petition is allowed with cost quantified at Rs. 5000/-. Respondent No. 4 is directed to give admission to the petitioner for training in B.Ed. Course as a regular student subject to fulfilment of other rules and conditions for admission to B.Ed. Course The respondents are further directed to send the compliance report under due intimation to this court within three weeks front today. Since the petitioner has already undergone more than actual period of sentence awarded to him, i.e., 14 1/2 years excluding the period of remission earned on account of good conduct, respondents No.l and 2 are directed to set the petitioner at liberty and release him forthwith.