Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 959 (PAT)

Manisha Prakash v. State Of Bihar

2006-10-19

V.N.SINHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard Shri Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Shahi, learned Advocate General for the Chanakya National Law University, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the "University") and its functionaries. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent University in not admitting her for the B.A. LL.B. (Hons,), 2006 course (hereinafter referred to as the "Course"). Petitioner, who comes for Female Backward Class category applied for admission in the Course. Her application for is contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit wherefrom it appears that the applicant was instructed to indicate where he/she belongs to any reserved category with further instruction to enclose proof in support thereof. In compliance of the said instruction, petitioner indicated that she belongs to Female Backward Class Category. It appears thereafter she was furnished with the Entrance Test Admit Card which is contained in Annexure-1 to this application, perusal whereof indicates that she was assigned 245 as her Roll Number and her centre was at Science College, Patna. In terms of the Admit Card, petitioner appeared in the written test and was even declared successful in the Female Backward Class Category but her merit position was not such which could ensure her admission in the Course in the said Female Backward Class Category and, accordingly, she was not admitted in the Course. Thereafter, she sought appropriate information from the authorities of the University and came to learn that her merit position in the Female Backward Class Category did not merit her admission in the Course as for the said category there was only three per cent reservation. She thereafter further ascertained status of the admission made in the Backward Class Category and learnt that the last candidate admitted in Backward Class Category secured only 99 marks yet admitted ignoring her higher 109 marks which prompted the petitioner to file this writ petition on 25.8.2006 alleging injustice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as she, having secured 109 marks was not admitted in the Backward Class Category, whereas, another candidate securing 99 marks was admitted. In support of the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Nidhi Sinha and Anju Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 108 and Manoj Kumar and Shanti Bhushan Vs. In support of the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Nidhi Sinha and Anju Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 108 and Manoj Kumar and Shanti Bhushan Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000(2) PLJR 285 , and with reference to those judgments, it was submitted that either the last candidate admitted in the Backward Class Category be remove and in her place petitioner be accommodated or seat in the Course be created so as to accommodate the petitioner. 3. The matter remained pending down below in the list until this Court under orders dated 11.9.2006 directed the case to be placed for consideration on 18.9.2006 whereafter the University filed the counter affidavit on 19.9.2006 and then the matter was adjourned to 25.9.2006 but was taken up on 26.9.2006 when the copy of the writ petition was directed to be served on Miss. Gayatri E, the last candidate admitted in the Backward Class Category through learned Advocate General, and for that purpose matter was adjourned to 9.10.2006 and thereafter to 16.10.2006 and 18.10.2006. Inspite of service of notice on Miss. Gayatri E, she did not choose to appear in this matter. 4. Learned Advocate General has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit as also with reference to the provisions contained in the Bihar (In Admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation Act, 2003 which, inter alia, privides that Women of Backward Classes will include even women of all the reserved classes including that of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Extremely Backward Classes and as the petitioner indicate her preference that she belongs to the Female Backward Class Category, her candidature was considered in the Female Backward Class Category and not in the Backward Class Category. If the petitioner was desirous of her case being considered in the Backward Class Category then she should have also indicated in the column meant for indicating reservation preference that she also belongs to backward class category then only her case would have been considered in he Backward Class Category. In the circumstances, according to learned Advocate General, the grievance raised in this petition that candidate securing lesser marks has been admitted is wholly misconceived and should be rejected. In the circumstances, according to learned Advocate General, the grievance raised in this petition that candidate securing lesser marks has been admitted is wholly misconceived and should be rejected. He further submitted that in any view of the matter, Mid Session Admission should not be allowed as admission having been closed on 29.7.2006, the Course having commenced on 14.8.2006, Surprise Test having been already held between 14.9.2006 to 19.9.2006 and Mid Semester Examination scheduled to be held between 23rd October, 2006 to 30th October, 2006. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 258 para-18 and the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2005 (2) SCC 65 . 5. The submission raised by the authorities of the University, in my opinion, appears to be wholly erroneous in view of the instructions contained in the brochure, Annexure-3 as also the application form, Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, which only called upon the candidate to indicate any of the reserved category, meaning thereby that Female Backward Class candidate shall necessarily be included in Backward Class Category as Backward Class is a larger class out of which smaller class Female Backward Class is carved out. In the circumstances, as the petitioner has not been considered in the Larger Backward Class Category even though she belongs to and indicated her reservation preference as Female Backward Class Category, I direct the Registrar of the University to place her case along with this order before the learned Vice Chancellor as also the Chancellor of the University, who is non-else that Hon ble the Chief Justice, for being considered for admission in the course in Backward Class Category even though the course commenced on 14.8.2006, Surprise Test was held between 14.9.2006 to 19.9.2006 and Mid Semester Examination is scheduled to be held between 23rd October, 2006 to 30th October, 2006 as this petition was filed on 25.8.2006 and since then till date in has remained pending in the Court, as, according to this Court, pendency of the matter in this Court should not prejudice any of the parties. Reliance placed by the Learned Advocate General over the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Reliance placed by the Learned Advocate General over the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and others (supra) as also in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others (supra) appears to be misconceived as in none of those cases petition highlighting the wrong committed by the authorities in selection process was filed within two weeks of the commencement of the Course. In the case of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh (supra) situation was entirely different as those who were already admitted in the dental course had filed writ petition for being considered against seats becoming vacant in the MBBS course after first counseling on the cjround that no second counseling was done and by the time the High Court entertained the request period of more than a year had already passed. Besides in the said case no discrimination/ illegality as alleged in the instant case was asserted. 6. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, Hon ble Chancellor is requested to pass appropriate orders as early as possible in any case within ten days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order with communication to the petitioner. 7. The applications stands disposed of.