Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 318 (CAL)

Mintu Sarkar v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2013-06-05

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2013
Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of a student and is filed for admission to Bachelor in Education Course for the year 2012-13 under the respondent university. The short fact is that the petitioner obtained the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Bengali, 1st Class from the Rabindra Bharati University and then he was admitted to the Course of Masters of Arts in the said University and he passed the said examination in 2nd Class. Thereafter, pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner applied for admission to Bachelor in Education Course for the year 2012-13 in Jagadish Chandra Basu Sikshak Sikhshan Mahavidyalaya. The final merit list was published on April 23, 2012 but the petitioner’s name did not appear and so, this writ application has been preferred. The short question involved in the matter is whether the respondents are and particularly the respondent university is justified in allotting 5% of the total seats for the migrant students and whether the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the writ petitioner obtained his B.A. and M.A. Degrees from the University of Burdwan and he applied for pursuing the B.Ed. Course for the session 2012-13 under the University of Calcutta. W henever he applied to the aforesaid Course under the respondent university, it is supposed that he must have been aware of the rules and regulations of the respondent university. The relevant rule necessary to solve the dispute here, I find, has been mentioned by the writ petitioner in his writ petition in Annexure P-4 at page no.32 which is set out below:- “5. The 5% of the total seats is to be reserved for only Migrant students. The full list based on merit, norms and conditions of NCTE and C.U. be published on the website of the respective colleges and one copy of the same to be submitted in the Office of Secretary, F.C. for P.G. studies in Education, Journalism, Library and Information Science.” Thus, the rule of the respondent university permits admission to 5% of the total seats reserved for the migrant students. On knowing very well such condition, the petitioner applied to the aforesaid course and his application was processed for selection according to the rules applicable to the migrant students. W hen he became unsuccessful in view of such percentage of seats, this application has been preferred. So far as eligibility for admission under the aforesaid course is concerned, the page no.35 of the application lays down the procedure for admission which is stated below:-“Admission shall be made on merit on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and/or in the entrance examination or any other selection process as per the policy of the State Government/U.T. Administration and the University.” Thus, when there is no system for entrance examination, the admission could be made as per policy of the State Government/UT Administration and the University. Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has referred to the decision of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & anr. v. Nilaybhai R. Thakore & anr. reported in AIR 2000 SC 114 particularly the paragraph nos.9 & 10 and thus, he has submitted that if there is a differentia within the class of students of Ahmedabad on the basis of their acquiring qualifications from schools within Ahmedabad Municipal limits or within the limits of AUDA, the rule would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Similarly, he has also relied on the decision of Dr. Pradeep Jain & ors. v. Union of India & ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1420 particularly the paragraph nos.10 & 21 to the effect that the equal opportunity for education and advancement across the nation is a part of the Constitution and the effort must be to select the best and most meritorious students for admission to technical institutions and medical colleges. It has also been decided that the admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses even a partial reservation based on residence requirement is not permissible. Though reservation based on institutional preference to the extent of 50 per cent would be permissible for the time being. Thus, he has contended that the reservation of 5% in the instant case is totally arbitrary and cannot be supported. On the other hand, Mr. Though reservation based on institutional preference to the extent of 50 per cent would be permissible for the time being. Thus, he has contended that the reservation of 5% in the instant case is totally arbitrary and cannot be supported. On the other hand, Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent university, reiterating the contention as raised in the affidavit-in-opposition has contended that on knowing very well the rules and regulations for admission of the migrant students, the petitioner participated the selection process and so, after failure in the said process, he cannot challenge the rules and regulations. He has also contended that there are two separate and exclusive channels of entry or sources of admission. There are many students under the University of Calcutta in different colleges and that is why reservation for migrant students has been limited to 5% of the seats only for the meritorious students. He has also contended that the similar type of reservations are followed in different Universities, such as, Burdwan University, Kalyani University, Vidyasagar Universty and he has drawn the attention of the Court to that effect as per the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent university. In the interest of the students at large, such a decision has been arrived at by the respondent university in order to ensure that the students passing out from the respondent university get a fair chance to complete and improve their qualifications by pursuing higher studies, by giving the particulars in details in the affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Bhattacharjee has contended that approximately 1 lakh students pass out each year, but, there are 3336 seats in the B.Ed. course under the respondent university in 31 affiliated colleges including the Department of Education, University of Calcutta. Out of the said 31 colleges, there are 18 self-financed colleges and two autonomous colleges, namely, St. Xavier’s College and Ramkrishna Mission Sikshan Mandir, Belur Math. The classes for the said two autonomous colleges had already commenced from July 2, 2012 and most of the colleges have completed the admission process in the year 2012. Mr. Out of the said 31 colleges, there are 18 self-financed colleges and two autonomous colleges, namely, St. Xavier’s College and Ramkrishna Mission Sikshan Mandir, Belur Math. The classes for the said two autonomous colleges had already commenced from July 2, 2012 and most of the colleges have completed the admission process in the year 2012. Mr. Bhattacharjee has also referred to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court when the challenge was made in an identical matter on reservation imposed by the Vidyasagar University, wherein the Hon’ble Judge stayed the operation of the restriction wherefrom an appeal being A.S.T. No.163 of 2012 was preferred and by a judgment dated June 19, 2012, the Hon’ble Division Bench set aside the impugned order of stay of 5% reservation for students of other Universities and those materials have been marked as Annexure ‘R-5’ to the affidavit-in-opposition. The said reservation of 5% is in vogue in the University of Calcutta for a considerable period since 1996 as appearing in the material ‘R-6’. In the instant case, by an order dated April 25, 2012, the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of reservation and the respondents preferred an appeal and the Appellate Court disposed of the appeal by passing an interim order directing the respondent university to follow the rules and procedures as laid down by the NCTE vide Annexure R-7 to the affidavit-in-opposition. Mr. Bhattacharjee has also referred to the decision of Gujarat University v. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt & ors. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 60 and thus, he has submitted that if a rule has been framed that out of the merit list prepared, preference is to be given for admission in the superspeciality courses to the students of the University in question per se, it cannot be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. He has also referred to the decision of State of M.P. & ors. v. Gopal D. Tirthani & ors. reported in (2003) 7 SCC 83 and thus, he has submitted that there is nothing wrong in the State Government setting apart a definite percentage of educational seats at Post Graduate level consisting of degree and diploma courses exclusively for the in-service candidates and so on. In the instant case, the B.Ed. course cannot be compared to that of the medical and technical courses at all. In the instant case, the B.Ed. course cannot be compared to that of the medical and technical courses at all. It is almost a general degree and ultimately, the students passing the B.Ed. education who choose to teach the students, in that case, the students would be benefited. Therefore, the decisions as referred by Mr. Roy Mukherjee, in my view, cannot be accepted. Reasonable classification is always permissible and such a reasonable classification is in vogue in the respondent university since 1996 as indicated earlier. After participation, when the petitioner became unsuccessful, he has challenged the said rule and this conduct at the last moment, in my view, is a calculated one only to see, if he could get another chance to pursue the said B.Ed. course in question. W hen such a procedure is adopted according to the order dated June 19, 2012 passed by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in A.S.T. No.163 of 2012 appearing as ‘R-5’ at page no.28 of the affidavit-in-opposition, I am of the view that the contention of the petitioner is not tenable at all. Again the last date for submission of application form was on March 26, 2012 when the petitioner became aware of the rules of the university as to reservation, but, this application, raising the question of arbitrariness, has been filed only on April 20, 2012. It may be mentioned herein that after the disposal of the appeal being M.A.T. No.1031 of 2012, the writ petitioner preferred a review being R.V.W. No.179 of 2012 which was dismissed on August 1, 2012 holding that the respondent university is entitled to admit students in B.Ed. course strictly on the basis of the selection process as per policy of the university and in course of admission, the NCTE norms and rules are to be followed. Against such order, the petitioner did not move the Apex Court. W hen the writ petitioner has taken a calculated chance, according to the decision of Madan Lal & anr. V. State of Jammu and Kashmir & ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 , the contention of the selection cannot be questioned. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043 . So, the respondent university is justified in allotting 5% of the total seats for the migrant students. reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 , the contention of the selection cannot be questioned. Similar view was also expressed in the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043 . So, the respondent university is justified in allotting 5% of the total seats for the migrant students. In my view, there is no arbitrariness and violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution in the matter of reservation. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that this application is totally devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, 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.