Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1089 (MP)

Kusum Mehra v. State of M. P.

2014-09-01

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT S.K. Palo, J. 1. Petitioner preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: 1. That, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant admission to the petitioner in respondent No. 3 College for B. Ed. Course in academic session of 2014-15. 2. Any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed. 2. The petitioner aggrieved by the respondents' action in denying her admission in B. Ed. Course, has claimed that the respondents have not followed the criteria of reservation. The petitioner belongs to the category of scheduled caste and she is a handicap person having permanent disability to the extent of 60%. Even then, the benefit of reservation has not been extended to her. The action of the respondents claimed to be arbitrary and discriminatory. Annexure P/1 is the caste certificate issued by S.D.O., Gadarwara District Narsinghpur, which shows that the petitioner belongs to the category of schedule caste. Annexure P/2 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Narsinghpur, in which the petitioner is shown to be a disabled person. She is suffering from permanent disability to the extent of 60%. The petitioner appeared in the B.Ed Entrance Test in the year 2014. She secured 94769 position in Madhya Pradesh Merit List. Anneuxre P/3 is the copy of the mark-sheet of entrance test. In the 1st round of counseling for B. Ed admission, she was allotted S.V.N. College, Sironj. She was required to pay entire fee at the time of admission, which the petitioner was unable to pay owing to her poor financial condition. 3. Therefore, she could not take admission in the 2nd round and 3rd round of counseling also. Thereafter wait list round of counseling was done from 1.7.2014 to 8.7.2014. Respondent No. 3 College also participated in the wait list counseling and it was allotted 8 students of schedule caste category. Counseling was held for another wait list round. Respondents No. 1 and 2 issued an order Annexure P/4, in which at Sr. No. 23, eleven vacant seats were shown in the respondent No. 3, College. Counseling was scheduled from 15.7.2014 to 19.7.2014. The petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 24 of the list prepared for admission in the respondent No. 3 College. Respondents No. 1 and 2 issued an order Annexure P/4, in which at Sr. No. 23, eleven vacant seats were shown in the respondent No. 3, College. Counseling was scheduled from 15.7.2014 to 19.7.2014. The petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 24 of the list prepared for admission in the respondent No. 3 College. The guidelines of Government of Madhya Pradesh for admission in B. Ed. Course provides horizontal reservation for handicap persons. The petitioner being a candidate belongs to schedule caste and handicap in women category has not been given the benefit of reservation. The State Government has issued another order dated 13.6.2014 Annexure P/8, in which it has been provided that the colleges have to grant admission to the students of reserved category on deposit of Rs. 5000/- only. 4. The petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 3 on 19.7.2014 requesting to extent her the benefit of reservation in the category of schedule caste handicap women category. She was not given the admission. Candidates upto Sr. No. 11 have been allotted to the Respondent No. 3, College. In the wait list round of counseling held from 1.7.2014 to 8.7.2014 respondent No. 3 College was allotted 8 students by respondents No. 1 and 2 from schedule caste category. But none of the 8 students reported in the college. Therefore, 8 seats still remain vacant. The respondents No. 1 and 2 can only grant admission to the petitioner. A representation was made to respondents No. 1 and 2 on 22.7.2014 for allotting the petitioner in respondent No. 3 College from the 8 vacant seats. But on being contacted, the authority of respondent No. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 3 College i.e. the M.L.B. College of Excellence, Gwalior, it was informed that no permission can be granted for admission. Hence, this petition. 5. The main contention on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 is that the ground made in the petition are false and fabricated. The petition is highly mis-conceived. Petitioner's name finds placed at Sr. No. 24 and 11 seats fallen vacant in respondents No. 3 College. As the admission was to be done on the basis of merits, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 6. Heard the rival contentions. 7. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on College of Professional Education and others Vs. No. 24 and 11 seats fallen vacant in respondents No. 3 College. As the admission was to be done on the basis of merits, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 6. Heard the rival contentions. 7. On behalf of the petitioner reliance has been placed on College of Professional Education and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2013) 2 SCC 721 , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: Education and Universities - Teachers Training - Admission - Admission procedure for academic session 2012-2013 and subsequent academic years. Agreed upon admission procedure directed to be followed till State Government made appropriate rules regarding same. Judicial legislation by issuance of directions. Constitution of India-Arts. 141 and 136-Ad hoc admission procedures as agreed upon by parties till enactment of appropriate law directed to be followed. 8. On behalf of the petitioner it is also contended that the petitioner being a member of scheduled caste and woman handicap women could have given an opportunity for admission when the seats are lying vacant. 9. The petitioner has also placed reliance on Nilesh Singhal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2008 (2) M.P.L.J. 356 , in which the learned Single Judge of this High Court has held that, Petitioner a blind was denied benefit of reservation to persons with disability-State Government failed to discharge its obligation, commensurate to Article 21 and 38 of the Constitution of India, to secure social order and to protect the disabled persons. 10. It is evident from Annexure P/2 disability certificate that the petitioner is disabled to the extent of 60%. It is common experience that persons having disability are unable to lead their life properly and facing discretion in employment. They are mast neglected in the family and society. However, could not have yet been uplifted. T.R. Dye, policy analyst in his book "Understanding Public Policy" says "Conditions in society which are not defined as a problem and for which alternatives are never proposed, never become policy issues. Government does nothing and conditions remain the same". It is worth mention here that insensitive and apathetic attitude harbored by some of us, living a normal healthy life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. 11. Government does nothing and conditions remain the same". It is worth mention here that insensitive and apathetic attitude harbored by some of us, living a normal healthy life, towards those unfortunate fellowmen who fell victim to some incapacitating disability. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, we allow this petition and direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the left vacant post in the respondent No. 3 College, subject to, of-course, the normal admission rules. In this regard petitioner can make a representation to the respondents within a week and the respondents shall take a law full decision within next seven days. Petition allowed and disposed of. No order as to costs.