Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 122 (CAL)

Shreya Saha v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-03-01

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of a student having the degree of B.A. honours in English and is filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents for allowing the petitioner to apply for admission to the first year of Master of Arts (M.A.) course under the University of Calcutta contending, inter alia, that the eligibility criteria of the University of Calcutta, imposing restriction on the honours graduates passing out of the University of Calcutta prior to the previous year are ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for other consequential reliefs. The short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the writ petitioner passed the B.A. examination with honours in English from the St. Xavier’s College (Autonomous) in 2010 and she was preparing for competitive examinations of the Civil Services conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and as such, she was late in applying for admission to the M.A. course in English under the respondent university. For the Academic Session 2012-13 she intended to get admission to the M.A. courses under the University of Calcutta. She has also contended that she obtained 470 marks out of 800 in the B.A. examination with honours in English and the last candidate who was admitted to the M.A. course for the Session 2012-13 obtained only 461 marks out of 800 and as such there was a discrimination. The petitioner has also contended that while there is a restriction as to allowing the students for admission prior to the previous year, there is no such restriction in respect of the students passing from other universities and are willing to get admission under the University of Calcutta. So, the writ petition has been filed for the reliefs already stated. The respondent university and the State of West Bengal are contesting the said application by filing affidavits-in-opposition separately. The respondent university has contended that it was a policy decision of the respondent university that the students who passed the B.A. course in the current year and also in the previous year are entitled to get admission to M.A. courses only. There was a disparity in admission to M.A. courses and M.Com. courses and such a disparity was removed from the Academic year 2012-13. There was a disparity in admission to M.A. courses and M.Com. courses and such a disparity was removed from the Academic year 2012-13. Reasonable classification has been made, so that the students passing the B.A. courses in the current year and the previous year can get admission to the M.A. courses. The removal of the disparity between the M.A. courses and the M.Com. Courses had not been done aiming at depriving the writ petitioner, but, it was a policy decision so that such current students might be accommodated to a great extent. So, the writ petition should be dismissed. Mr. Kollol Basu appearing for the writ petitioner has virtually reiterated the contention raised by the writ petitioner in her application, affidavit-in-reply and supplementary affidavit. Similarly Mr. B. Bhattacharya has reiterated the contention raised in the affidavit-in-opposition. Ms. Sanghamitra Nandy, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent State has supported the contention of the University of Calcutta. Now, the following questions have arisen for decision in the writ petition:- (i) Whether the eligibility criteria imposing restriction on the honours graduates passing out prior to the previous year are oppressive, irrational, unreasonable and create discrimination without any reasonable basis, and hence are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and; (ii) Whether the eligibility criteria for admission to M.A. courses have created a discrimination between the graduates passing out from the University of Calcutta and passing out from other recognized universities. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the petitioner passed B.A. examination with honours in English in the year 2010 obtaining 470 marks out of 800 in the honours subject from the St. Xavier’s College under the University of Calcutta and that she intended to get admission to the M.A. course under the respondent university for the Academic Session 2012-13. The petitioner has also contended that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. It is pertinent to mention the relevant rules of the respondent university for admission to the M.A. courses and the same are quoted below:- 1) “Honours graduates from other recognized university in the system of (10+2+3) of the current and just previous year are eligible to apply for M.A./M.Com. It is pertinent to mention the relevant rules of the respondent university for admission to the M.A. courses and the same are quoted below:- 1) “Honours graduates from other recognized university in the system of (10+2+3) of the current and just previous year are eligible to apply for M.A./M.Com. 2) Candidates passing honours/major courses in Arts, Science and Commerce in Under Graduate Degree Level from Indira Gandhi National Open University/Netaji Subash Open University and Distance Education Programmes of other Universities of West Bengal are also eligible for admission under reserved quota as per University & W.B. Govt’s rule.” It may be noted herein that as per affidavit-in-opposition, in order to maintain equality in the matter of admission to M.A. courses and M.Com. courses the disparity between the two has been removed by the respondent university from the Academic Year 2012-13, holding that the candidates passing out this year and the previous year are eligible for admission to M.A. courses maintaining the similarity for admission to the M.Com. courses. So far as this change of mode of admission maintaining the equality under the two courses are concerned, I think, the change cannot be described as arbitrary at all rather a uniform and systematic system has been adopted by the university so that the students of different wings cannot have any grievance relating to the eligibility criteria in different courses. Therefore, such change is quite reasonable and is not meant only to avoid the admission of the petitioner. As to the logic for taking such a decision, the respondent university has contended that such a policy decision has been adopted by the university as many students pass out from different colleges under the University of Calcutta in each year and so, the students who pass out current year and in the previous year deserve most to get admission under the university of India. A student may not get admission for a particular year for various reasons and, that is why, when such a student intends to get admission in the next year, such eligibility criteria have been adopted by the respondent university and since huge numbers of students from different colleges under the respondent university pass out each year in order to make maximum accommodation to the current year students and the students of the previous year, such a policy decision has been adopted. Therefore, the eligibility criteria appear to be most reasonable and not discriminatory in nature. So far as the petitioner is concerned as recorded above, though she passed the B.A. examination in 2010, she did not apply for admission to M.A. course under the respondent university for the year either in 2010 or 2011. In each year she could have got admission easily, but, she waited for two years to compete different examinations conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and thereafter, after a gap of two years she intended to get admission to the M.A. course only in the Academic Session 2012-13. Be that as it may, I find that the respondent university is quite free to adopt eligibility criteria for admission to the M.A. and M.Com. courses and it is competent to take such a policy decision which is beneficial to the maximum students of the present year and the previous year. Under the circumstances the equality is maintained in respect of the eligibility criteria of M.A. and M.Com. courses from the Academic Session 2012-13 and as such, this is nothing, but, a policy decision of the respondent university and there is a logic in the said eligibility criteria as indicated hereinabove and it cannot be described at all as a discrimination against the writ petitioner. Reasonable classification is always permissible provided the same does not seem to be discriminatory and aim at avoiding a particular person. In the instant case, there is no such occasion, but, a policy decision of the university. The contention of the writ petitioner is that no reason has been assigned in taking such a decision in the Academic Year 2012-13 and in this respect, I am of the view that the respondent university is not supposed to give an explanation to a particular student in this matter. Anyway, the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent university lays down the policy decision explicitly and the basis or the logic has been explained for changing the eligibility criteria from the year 2012-13. The respondent university is within its right to adopt such eligibility criteria provided the same does not suffer from discrimination or arbitrariness. Anyway, the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent university lays down the policy decision explicitly and the basis or the logic has been explained for changing the eligibility criteria from the year 2012-13. The respondent university is within its right to adopt such eligibility criteria provided the same does not suffer from discrimination or arbitrariness. In the instant case, there having no element of discrimination or arbitrariness on the part of the respondent university in adopting the said eligibility criteria rather the same bearing a sense of equality amongst different courses, I am of the view that the said eligibility criteria cannot be described at all oppressive, irrational and unreasonable and bearing a sense of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. So far as the admission of the last candidate of the same category i.e. Scheduled Caste category, the candidate having obtained marks less than the writ petitioner is concerned, I find from the materials on record that the said student has complied with the eligibility criteria and as such she got admission according to the merit list published by the University of Calcutta. The petitioner was denied admission for not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Mr. Kollol Basu, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has referred to the decision of Asha v. Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and Ors. reported in (2012) 7 Supreme Court Cases 389, particularly paragraph no.21 and thus, he has contended that the criteria for selection have to be merit alone. Merit, fairness and transparency are the ethos of process for admission to such courses. It will be a travesty of the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court and duly notified by the States, if the Rule of Merit is defeated by inefficiency, inaccuracy or improper methods of admission. From the facts of the present case, it is evident that merit has been a casualty. With due respect to Mr. Basu, I am of the view that the case was completely different from the present one. In the instant case, the writ petitioner was denied admission on the ground of non- fulfillment of the eligibility criteria and so the comparison of marks with the last candidate selected for the M.A. course for the Session 2012-13 upon following the eligibility criteria cannot be accepted. In the instant case, the writ petitioner was denied admission on the ground of non- fulfillment of the eligibility criteria and so the comparison of marks with the last candidate selected for the M.A. course for the Session 2012-13 upon following the eligibility criteria cannot be accepted. The decision cannot be stated to have suffered from inaccuracy or improper methods of admission as contended by Mr. Basu. So far as the students of other universities are concerned in my view, it is also a policy decision of the respondent university to give a chance to the meritorious students from the other university, who desire to get admission to the respondent university. So, a reasonable classification is always permissible for betterment of the image of a particular university. The respondent university has clarified that so far as the eligibility criteria are concerned, the same are maintained by all the universities and there is no denial on the part of the writ petitioner in this respect. Since it is also a policy decision, which appears to be reasonable, I am of the view that such a policy decision cannot be a subject matter of dispute before a writ Court. The points of law as formulated are thus answered in the negative. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that there is no scope of granting any of the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.