Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 674 (MP)

PRASENJIT KARMAKAR v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-05-06

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA, DIPAK MISRA

body2003
JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. In this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent defensibility of the order dated 3-12-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4239/2002 has been called in question. The facts that are essential to be adumbrated for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), a young man in his late teens prosecuted his studies upto Xth class in Delhi Public School, Vindhya Nagar, District Sidhi. He passed Xth class examination in the year 1999 and thereafter took admission in the Delhi Public School Risali Sector, Bhilai in the academic session 1999-2000. He appeared in the Senior School Certificate Examination, 2001 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education and passed the same by getting high percentage of marks. It is not disputed that at the time of admission in Senior School Certificate Examination, Bhilai was situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. During the academic session 2000-2001 the State of Madhya Pradesh was re-organized by virtue of the State Reorganization Act, 2000 and the State of Chhattisgarh was carved out of the existing State with effect from 1-11-2000. As a result of such re-organization Bhilai, which was situated in the Revenue district of Durg, became a part of the new State of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner appeared in the Pre Engineering Test conducted by the Professional Examination Board, M.P. as he was desirous of seeking admission in a Regional Engineering College wherein certain seats are reserved for the State of Madhya Pradesh. The result of examination was declared in the month of June 2002. The petitioner secured 735.68 marks out of total 900 marks and was placed at serial no. 387 in the All India merit list. As the petitioner was in the merit list, he was called for the counselling for admission to Regional Engineering College by the Director of Technical Education. The counselling was held at Jabalpur on 23-7-2002. As he was found fit, he was allotted a seat in the Regional Engineering College, Rourkela against the quota reserved for the candidates belonging to the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereafter, he was directed to approach the Counselling Cell of Rajeev Gandhi Prodyogik Vishwa Vidyalaya situated in the premises of M.A.C.T. (now renamed as MANIT) on 30th July 2002 for obtaining the necessary clearance certificate. Thereafter, he was directed to approach the Counselling Cell of Rajeev Gandhi Prodyogik Vishwa Vidyalaya situated in the premises of M.A.C.T. (now renamed as MANIT) on 30th July 2002 for obtaining the necessary clearance certificate. According to the petitioner, he appeared before the Counselling Cell of respondent No. 3 on the date fixed but he was not issued a certificate and was asked to approach on 2-8-2002. On that day, he was informed that he was not entitled to be granted clearance certificate for admission against the quota reserved for the State of Madhya Pradesh as he had not passed the qualifying examination of XIIth class from an educational institution situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In view of the obtaining factual matrix, the petitioner submitted a representation to the State Government seeking its interference but when no response was shown, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition No. 4239/2002. This Court on 12-8-2002 after issuance of notice eventually passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner commanding the respondent No. 3 to issue requisite clearance certificate in his favour on 29-8-2002 itself. As pleaded after lot of efforts the respondent No. 3 did not issue the requisite clearance certificate but only issued a formal letter addressing it to the Director National Institute of Technology, Rourkela intimating in regard to nomination of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner rushed to Rourkela and met the competent authority but to his dismay he was not offered admission as by that time one Saurabh Kumar Sharma, respondent No. 5 herein, had already been admitted. The said Saurabh Kumar Sharma was arrayed as a party to the writ petition. When the matter was taken up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge, it was contended that the father of the petitioner is serving in Coal India Ltd. and posted at Sidhi and therefore the petitioner satisfies the domicile requirement as prescribed in Rules 2.3.1 and 2.4.2 of State of Madhya Pradesh Admission Rules (for brevity 'the Rules') and all other conditions except the condition No. 2 that finds mention in Schedule - I to the Rules which pertains to passing of XIIth class examination from any school situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh. It was also canvassed before the learned Single Judge that the State of Madhya Pradesh has relaxed the Rules vide memorandum dated 21/22-4-2002 by which exemption has been granted in respect of son/daughter of Madhya Pradesh State Government employees and the officers in the cadre of Indian Administrative Services allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh was arbitrary and discriminatory. It was also putforth that the Coal India Limited is a Public Sector Undertaking and there was no justification not to grant such exemption in favour of its employees. It was highlighted before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner had studied most of the period in the State of Madhya Pradesh but at the time of passing of examination, Bhilai came to be situated in the State of Chhattisgarh and by virtue of this situation which was beyond the control of the petitioner, he should not have been compelled to suffer. The respondents in oppugnation contended before the learned Single Judge that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions mentioned in Schedule -1 and, therefore, he was not entitled for admission against the quota of State of Madhya Pradesh candidates meant for Regional Engineering Colleges situated outside the State of Madhya Pradesh. A stance was taken that no discrimination is meted out to the petitioner as the policy decision of the State only takes care of State Government employees and officers belonging to the IAS cadre allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh, as they constitute a different class. A stance was taken that no discrimination is meted out to the petitioner as the policy decision of the State only takes care of State Government employees and officers belonging to the IAS cadre allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh, as they constitute a different class. The learned Single Judge compartmentalized the submissions into four spectrums and came to hold that possessing of eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 2.4.2 is only applicable for admission to State Colleges and has no relevance as far as filling of seats against State quota in Regional Engineering Colleges situated outside the State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned; that the State Government employees and the officers belonging to IAS cadre allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh stand on a different footing than that of the employees who serve in Coal India Limited and hence the classification is not discriminatory; that the petitioner had passed the qualifying examination that is to say the XIIth class examination in April, 2001 from the State of Chhattisgarh after it was created and, therefore, he was not entitled for relaxation of the conditions as mentioned in Schedule - I; and that it was up to the State Government to include any further category for the purpose of relaxation. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. We have heard Mr. Rohit Arya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. S.L. Saxena, senior counsel with Mr. Bakshi for the respondent No. 3. Despite service of notice, there has been no appearance on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5. Assailing the pregnability of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is submitted by Mr. Rohit Arya that the interpretation given to 2.4.2 read with by the learned Single Judge is not correct as the harmonious construction would lead to inevitable conclusion that if a candidate meets the requirement as envisaged under 2.4.2 of the Rules, he has to be given admission in the quota of State of Madhya Pradesh. It is his further submission that when the petitioner had studied in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than three years between 1997-2002, insistence on passing of class XIIth examination is totally unwarranted. It is his further submission that when the petitioner had studied in the State of Madhya Pradesh for more than three years between 1997-2002, insistence on passing of class XIIth examination is totally unwarranted. It is his further submission that when the petitioner had filled up the form, Bhilai was the part of State of Madhya Pradesh but unfortunately by virtue of the Reorganization Act, 2000 he has been treated to have passed XIIth Class examination from Bhilai which is not in the State of Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, a liberal view should have been taken by reading down the provisions. It is also highlighted by Mr. Rohit Arya that the relaxation which has been shown to the State Government employees and officers belonging to the IAS cadre, is absolutely unreasonable, irrational and discriminatory and there is no rhyme or reason to keep the employees of the Coal India Limited out of the zone of relaxation though they belong to a Public Sector Undertaking. To bolster his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of A. Muralidhar and Others Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, ; Deepak Sibal Vs. Punjab University and Another, ; Meenakshi Malik Vs. University of Delhi and Others, ; and Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das, (1992) 3 SCC 543 . Mr. S.K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate, per contra, submitted that the petitioner did not satisfy the requisite criteria fixed in the Rules and, therefore, the colossal complaint made by him is of no avail. It is urged by the learned counsel for the State that Rule 2.4.2 deals with the general conditions and if a candidate satisfies the said conditions he is entitled to compete in the general class in the State of Madhya Pradesh but his case cannot be considered in respect of the quota seats reserved for the State of Madhya Pradesh in the Regional Engineering Colleges. It is propounded by Mr. Yadav that the petitioner had not assailed the validity of the Rules in vogue and, therefore, the contentions raised in appeal questioning the propriety of the Rules pertaining to relaxation or classification is absolutely unwarranted inasmuch had the Rules been challenged the matter would have been heard by the Division Bench as per the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules and Orders. It is further canvassed by Mr. It is further canvassed by Mr. Yadav that the petitioner's case is not covered by the Rules as the decision taken by the competent authority not to issue a clearance certificate initially was not erroneous and there is no justification in law to find any flaw in the same. Mr. S.L. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 in his turn submitted that the petitioner did not appear in the P.E.T. Examination in 2000-2001 though he could have appeared in the same year when there was a common Board for the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh but he chose to appear in the P.E.T. Examination which was held for the year 2001-2002 and by that time the present Rules had come into force keeping in view the interest of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also canvassed by him that the emphasis laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Rule 2.4.2 is of no avail and any kind of reading down of the said Rule to permit the petitioner or his likes would tantamount to causing violence to the spirit of the Rules. It is urged by him that the petitioner's is not a lone case seeking admission to the Regional Engineering College inasmuch as if laxity is shown to the likes of the petitioner, there will be many persons who would come in that category and in that eventuality the students of State of Madhya Pradesh would face immense hardship and uncalled for jeopardy. It has been canvassed by him that the petitioner can always appear in the quota meant for the State of Chhattisgarh as he has passed 12th class from that State. The learned counsel has submitted that the quota meant for undivided State of Madhya Pradesh has been distributed proportionately between the State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh and hence the Rule has to be understood and appreciated in that spirit. The sole question that falls for adjudication at this juncture is whether meeting the eligibility criteria as engrafted under Rule 2.4.2 would have enabled the petitioner to get admission in the Regional Engineering College at Rourkela. It is pertinent to state here that the Rules are in Hindi. Rule 2.4.2 envisages certain conditions. The sole question that falls for adjudication at this juncture is whether meeting the eligibility criteria as engrafted under Rule 2.4.2 would have enabled the petitioner to get admission in the Regional Engineering College at Rourkela. It is pertinent to state here that the Rules are in Hindi. Rule 2.4.2 envisages certain conditions. The said conditions are that a candidate must be a citizen of India; he must have studied continuously for three years between the year 1997-2002; and he should have been a domicile of State of Madhya Pradesh. It is relevant to state here that various criteria have been provided to meet the domicile aspect. Neither Mr. S.L. Saxena nor Mr. S.K. Yadav has disputed the fact that the petitioner has met the criteria provided under the said Rule. Schedule I to the Rule stipulates two conditions. The condition No. 1 of the Schedule I relates to educational qualification with certain subjects. It is not disputed that the petitioner had aforesaid subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in his 10 + 2 Examination. The condition No. 2 of the Schedule - I lays a postulate that to be qualified for the seats meant for the reserved seats for the State of Madhya Pradesh. A candidate must have passed the requisite examination from school or college situated within the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not disputed that the requisite qualification is 12th class. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Schedule should not be given effect to in case of the petitioner, as he had become a victim of the Reorganization Act. It needs no special emphasis to state that Schedule-I forms a part of the Rule. The condition No. 2 of the Schedule-I clearly lays down that a candidate must have passed the requisite examination from an educational institution situated within the State. The petitioner has admittedly passed from the Institution situated in Bhilai, which is in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Schedule-I cannot be segregated from the main Rule itself. The main rule deals with the domicile facet and Schedule-I deals with a different spectrum. Both are to be read in a combined manner. To put it differently, the Schedule-I adds certain more conditions than what have been stated in Rule 2.4.2. The importance or signification of the additional conditions can never be marginalized. The main rule deals with the domicile facet and Schedule-I deals with a different spectrum. Both are to be read in a combined manner. To put it differently, the Schedule-I adds certain more conditions than what have been stated in Rule 2.4.2. The importance or signification of the additional conditions can never be marginalized. Another interesting facet that has been putforth is that the petitioner did not appear in the 2001 examination. This has been unequivocally stated by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Mr. S.L. Saxena. He has referred to Section 66 of the Reorganization Act. The said provision reads as under: 66. Continuance of facilities in certain State Institutions. -- (1) The Government of State of Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh, as the case may be shall, in respect of the institutions specified in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, located in that State, continue to provide facilities to the people of the other State which shall not, in any respect, by less favourable to such people than what were being provided to them before the appointed day, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the two State Governments within a period of one year from the appointed day or if no agreement is reached within the said period of one year, then, as may be fixed by order of the Central Government. (2) The Central Government may, at any time within a period of one year from the appointed day, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in the Eighth Schedule any other institution existing on the appointed day in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh and on the issue of such notification, the Schedule shall be deemed to be amended by the inclusion of the said institution therein. It is contended by him that there was a singular Board for one year. Had the petitioner applied at that time, the matter would have been different. On a reading of provision, we find that there is substantial force in his submission. Had the petitioner appeared in that particular year, there would not have been difficulty. When the Rules came into force the petitioner is bound to be governed by the Rules. The interpretation given by the learned Single Judge with regard to the Rule is absolutely impeccable and we concur with the same. Had the petitioner appeared in that particular year, there would not have been difficulty. When the Rules came into force the petitioner is bound to be governed by the Rules. The interpretation given by the learned Single Judge with regard to the Rule is absolutely impeccable and we concur with the same. We will be failing in our duty if we do not advert to the eloquent submission of Mr. Rohit Arya that the Rules are totally discriminatory and defiant of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We have already referred the decisions cited by him. In the case of A. Murlidhar (supra) a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Article 14 of the Constitution does not inhibit territorial classification but it should be based on an intelligible differentia and a nexus between the classification and the object of the enactment of a rule should exist. In the case of Deepak Sibal (Supra), a two Judge Bench of the Apex Court dealt with the constitutional validity of the rule relating to admission in the evening classes of three year L.L.B. degree course conducted by the department of Laws of Punjab University. In that context their Lordships held that the impugned rule therein was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to state here that in the said case the relevant Rule stated that admission to evening classes was only open to regular employees of Government/Semi-Government Institutions/affiliated Colleges/statutory Corporates and Government companies. In the case of Meenakshi Malik (supra) a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with the situation where admission to medical college in Delhi required fulfilment of condition of schooling for last two years in school at Delhi. Their Lordships held that the condition was unreasonable in case of a candidate who had to leave India for foreign country on transfer of parents. In the case of Osiris Das (supra), the Apex Court was considering the reservation of 5% seats over and above the sanctioned strength of seats for sons and wards of employees of the institution (G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology) and in that context their Lordships held that candidate cannot claim any legal right to such reservation and it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is relevant to state here that in all the aforesaid decisions, the constitutional validity of the Rules was challenged. In the present case, the same was not assailed. It is not disputed before us that had it been assailed, it would have been listed before a Division Bench. However, as has been indicated hereinbefore the learned Single Judge has dealt with the concept of classification and held that the classification is valid. Though, we are not required to decide the constitutional validity of the policy decision dated 22-4-2002 of the State Government granting exemption, yet for the sake of completeness we shall advert to it. It is a letter circular issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh in the department of Technical Education and Manpower Planning. In the said memorandum it has been provided that the wards of the State of Madhya Pradesh or the persons who have been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh in All India Services would be entitled for admission in respect of Regional Engineering Colleges situated outside the State and the quota meant for the State. A condition has been stipulated that guardian of the candidate has to give a certificate that his ward is interested to take admission in respect of the seats meant for M.P. quota in Regional Engineering Colleges and he has not applied in respect of any quota of any other State. On a perusal of the said circular, it is perceivable that the State has given a privilege to its employees as well as to the employees of All India Services who have been allocated to the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is not disputed that the petitioner's father is working in the Coal India Limited. True, it is a Central Government Undertaking but a Central Government Undertaking would stand on a different footing and an employee of the State or an officer allocated to the State would stand on a separate platform. It is not a case where equals are treated as unequals. The classification exposes the intelligible differential and has a purpose. It has been made in respect of the employees of the State and the officers who have been allocated to the State because it is the State quota, which is to be filled up. It is not a case where equals are treated as unequals. The classification exposes the intelligible differential and has a purpose. It has been made in respect of the employees of the State and the officers who have been allocated to the State because it is the State quota, which is to be filled up. When the conception of State quota arises and filling of the same ensues, we are inclined to think, the State is entitled to make stipulations by incorporating conditions as well as relaxation to certain categories of persons. As the memorandum projects relaxation has been confined to those kind of employees who had to do something with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh. When a classification has been made in respect of the employees and the officers who have something to do with the State or in relation to the State, they would constitute a different class, a permissible one in law inasmuch as they stand on a different footing in contradistinction to the employees serving in the Coal India. They, according to us constitute a distinct class and the classification has a purpose to achieve. In fact, the classification is a reasonable one and does not play foul upon Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence we are of the considered opinion that the memorandum dated 22-4-2002 does not offend the conscience of equality clause as engrafted under Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly we concur with the same. Resultantly, the appeal being sans merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed