Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2084 (RAJ)

Dilip Choudhary v. University of Rajasthan

2007-10-26

K.G.BALAKRISHNAN, R.V.RAVEENDRAN, V.S.SIRPURKAR

body2007
Honble BALAKRISHNAN, CJI.–Leave granted. (2). The appellant sought admission for LLM course for the academic session 2004-05. He belongs to OBC. As a member of the OBC he was entitled to benefit of reservation. He also claimed the benefit of 2% weightage permissible for athletes and sports persons under the relevant Ordinance. He relied on Clause(c) of the prospectus which is extracted below for claiming 2% weightage: "(C)The following categories of candidates shall be eligible for a weightage of 2% of the total aggregate of marks prescribed for the qualifying examination while preparing the merit list for admission to a course: (i) Those who have represented their respective schools in games and sports at Education Department Tournaments at least once in the immediately preceding two years. (ii) Those who have represented their respective colleges in games and sports at the inter-collegiate tournaments held under the auspices of the University Sports Board or Directorate of Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan at least once in the immediately preceding two years. (iii) Those who have represented the State in a National Jamboori organised under the auspices of any of the States of India in the immediately preceding two years." (3). The appellant alleges that he participated in the University of Rajasthan Inter- college tournament (Volley Ball) and was, therefore, entitled to 2% weightage. The appellant was denied such 2% weightage on the ground that as he had claimed the benefit of reservation, as a member of OBC, he cannot claim a second benefit by way of sports weightage having regard to bar contained in University Ordinance 257A. The High Court also declined to grant relief to the appellant as he was not entitled to claim double benefits. (4). The appellant contended that he passed the LL.B.(Final) Examination securing 55.51% in aggregate, and if 2% was added as sports weightage, his percentage would have been 57.51%, and as he had secured more than the last candidate admitted under the OBC category (Out off mark being 56.74%), he ought to have been granted admission. On the other hand, the University contended if 2% weightage is given, it would amount to granting double benefit, that is one benefit as an OBC candidate and another as a sports weightage and that was not permissible. On the other hand, the University contended if 2% weightage is given, it would amount to granting double benefit, that is one benefit as an OBC candidate and another as a sports weightage and that was not permissible. The respondents have not shown any rule or regulation which bars a person claiming the benefit of reservation either as a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or an an OBC candidate, from claiming the benefit of sports weightage of 2% if he also happens to be a sportsman. The 2% weightage is available to the specified categories or sportsmen, irrespective of whether they belonged to the general category or any reserved category. Grant of such weightage does not amount to giving a double benefit. Ordinance 257A does not provide anything to the contrary. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court holding that a person who is claiming the benefit of reservation as an OBC candidate, cannot claim the weightage for sportsman is not correct and is set aside. (5). As we are already in 2007, the appellant cannot obviously claim admission for the academic year 2004-05. To that extent the appeal is infructuous. But if he makes any application for admission in future, in the absence of any change in legal position on account of any amendment of the rules or regulations in vogue in 2004-05, the appellant will be entitled to claim such weightage irrespective of the fact that he had claimed reservation as an OBC candidate. (6). The appeal is disposed of accordingly.