Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1262 (RAJ)

Sundra Sodha v. State of Rajasthan

2015-07-08

SANGEET LODHA

body2015
JUDGMENT : SANGEET LODHA, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to grant her admission to undergraduate programme leading to Bachelor's Degree in discipline of Mining Engineering B.E. (Mining) in the College of Technology and Engineering, Udaipur, while extending benefit of reservation under the women category. 2. The facts leading to filing of the present petition are that the Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan, issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates for admission to first year of undergraduate programme in different disciplines of Engineering in government aided and private unaided technical institutions of Rajasthan (except BITS Pilani, MNIT Jaipur and other deemed & private Universities) for the academic session 2014-15 through Rajasthan Pre-Engineering Test-2014 (RPET-2014). 3. The petitioner being eligible to participate in RPET-2014 filled up the application form online and appeared in the examination. The result of RPET-2014 was declared wherein the petitioner secured 34 marks out of 120. She was placed in the General merit at serial No. 27654 and at serial No. 4750 in the merit list of category General (Female). After declaration of the result, the second respondent-Coordinator, RPET-2014, issued instructions for filling up online option forms for securing admission in different disciplines of Engineering. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filled up online option form giving preference regarding admission in different disciplines of Engineering as also the institutions. The petitioner had given preference for admission in various branches of engineering courses conducted by the College of Technology and Engineering, Udaipur, the fourth respondent herein. The petitioner had given second option for mining branch under Self Finance Seat (SFS) and ninth option for mining branch under Government Aided Seats (GAS). After filling up online option form, the respondent issued institution-wise seat matrix for RPET-2014 in respect of various institutions. 4. As per the General Instructions issued by the second respondent for RPET-2014 horizontal reservation of 25% is provided for women in all categories. However, in the seat matrix published, the respondents did not provide even a single seat for women category for undergraduate course in mining branch either in SFS or GAS, though the horizontal reservation for women in M.Tech. Course in mining branch has been provided. Hence, this petition. 5. However, in the seat matrix published, the respondents did not provide even a single seat for women category for undergraduate course in mining branch either in SFS or GAS, though the horizontal reservation for women in M.Tech. Course in mining branch has been provided. Hence, this petition. 5. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in not extending benefits of reservation to women category for admission to undergraduate course in mining branch is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of mandate of Constitution of India. It is contended that the denial of reservation for women category in mining branch of undergraduate course in engineering is violative of principles of gender equality enshrined in Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 6. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, the first and second respondent filed reply, taking the stand that as per the rules of admission, the women candidates are not granted admission in mining branch of engineering and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of reservation for women candidates in mining branch. It is submitted that as per the seat matrix showing the reservation in different branches of undergraduate courses received from all the institutions, the number of seats allotted to women category in mining branch is zero. It is submitted that since no seats have been kept reserved for women candidates in mining branch, the benefit of reservation for women could not be provided to the petitioner. Thus, precisely the stand of the State of Rajasthan is that admission in undergraduate course in mining engineering branch is not granted to the women candidates and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of reservation for women candidates in mining branch. 7. Later, the first and second respondent filed a detailed reply to the writ petition taking the stand that over all merit of the petitioner comes to 27,654 and in General (Female) category, she stands in the merit list at serial No. 4750. 7. Later, the first and second respondent filed a detailed reply to the writ petition taking the stand that over all merit of the petitioner comes to 27,654 and in General (Female) category, she stands in the merit list at serial No. 4750. According to the respondents, as a matter of fact, by virtue of her own merit position, the petitioner could not have been admitted in any of the branches of engineering, however, she has approached this Court on the surmise that had there been reservation prescribed for women candidates in mining branch, she would have certainly been allotted mining branch in the college of her choice. It is submitted that seat matrix was published and therefore, if the petitioner had any grievance pertaining to non grant of reservation for women category in mining branch, she could have approached the Court before the last date fixed for filling up the option form i.e. 9.7.2014. It is submitted that the writ petition preferred at the stage when the entire admission process is over, deserves to be dismissed. It is submitted that Section 46 of the Mines Act, 1952, specifically provides that no woman shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law be employed in any part of a mine which is below ground and since the curriculum part of engineering in mining branch consists of practical knowledge below ground and thus, the decision regarding non prescribing of reservation is not illegal, arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights. It is submitted that the reservation is provided only in government aided institutions and there are only two government aided institutions in Rajasthan conducting engineering courses in mining branch and therefore, if at this stage the reservation for women in mining branch is applied, it will disturb the seat allotments. It is submitted that the petitioner stands at serial No. 4750 in the merit list of General (Female) category and in the institution of her choice, no candidate having lesser marks has been accorded admission. It is submitted that the last candidate admitted in General (Female) category in any of the branches has the merit position at serial No. 1310 and thus, there is no likelihood of her getting admission in the desired course. 8. It is submitted that the last candidate admitted in General (Female) category in any of the branches has the merit position at serial No. 1310 and thus, there is no likelihood of her getting admission in the desired course. 8. On 17.10.2014, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the first and second respondent taking the stand that in all, the petitioner submitted 9 preferences for different branches but, she had given first preference for admission in the respondent college for Civil Branch (SFS) and the second preference for Mining Branch (SFS) and had given last option for Mining (GAS). It is submitted that the petitioner's candidature was considered for admission into seven branches of engineering inasmuch as in the Mining Engineering Branch, admission to female category candidates are not granted. It is submitted that in all 132 female candidates opted for admission to Mining Engineering Branch in the respondent college and the petitioner stands at serial No. 98 in the merit list and therefore, by no stretch of imagination the petitioner could have been allotted the respondent college for pursuing undergraduate course in mining branch. It is submitted that in all ten seats are available for GAS in mining branch in the respondent college and therefore, if the reservation is applied only 1.25 seats goes in favour of women category and likewise in Mining Branch SFS category, only 0.625 seat goes in favour of women category candidates inasmuch as in SFS the reservation is available only against 50% seats. It is submitted that if at this stage the reservation for female candidates is applied for admission to undergraduate course in mining branch, it will open the pandora box and endless process of admission would start. Thus, according to the respondents, if the reservation is applied for women category, only two seats would be available for horizontal reservation for the women category in the respondent College for which the petitioner has filled up the option and therefore, there is no possibility of petitioner getting admission in the Mining Branch looking to her merit position. 9. Thus, according to the respondents, if the reservation is applied for women category, only two seats would be available for horizontal reservation for the women category in the respondent College for which the petitioner has filled up the option and therefore, there is no possibility of petitioner getting admission in the Mining Branch looking to her merit position. 9. The respondent College in its reply to the writ petition has taken the stand that Section 46 of the Mines Act, 1952, prohibits employment of women in mining operation and therefore, when job oriented education does not provide for any job after obtaining degree in stream of mining, admission cannot be granted to women in mining branch of engineering courses. It is submitted that 22 seats of undergraduate course of engineering in mining branch allotted by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to the respondent College were filled at the very threshold. It is submitted that adhering to the time schedule provided by AICTE vide notification dated 27.9.2012, the last date for admission against the vacant seat was fixed as 15.8.2014 and all the allotted seats of mining branch in the respondent College were filled up before the given date and no seat is presently lying vacant. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the action of the respondents in denying the admission and benefits of reservation to the women in mining branch of undergraduate course in engineering, is ex facie illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the principle of gender equality is enshrined in the Constitution of India in its Preamble, Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles. Learned counsel submitted that the women are granted admission to undergraduate course in all the branches of engineering and are also conferred horizontal reservation in all the branches except mining. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, even in M.Tech. Course in mining branch, the reservation is provided to women. Learned counsel submitted that in the present era, where women have proved equally worthy in every field alongside the men, the discrimination based on gender is not only violative of the Constitutional mandate but also smacks the regressive mindset of the state authorities. Course in mining branch, the reservation is provided to women. Learned counsel submitted that in the present era, where women have proved equally worthy in every field alongside the men, the discrimination based on gender is not only violative of the Constitutional mandate but also smacks the regressive mindset of the state authorities. Learned counsel submitted that it is a case wherein the females would have received the same treatment with the males but for their sex. Learned counsel submitted that no less favourable treatment could be extended to women on gender based criterion. Learned counsel urged that constitutional prohibition to the State not to discriminate the citizens only on sex does not prohibit a special treatment to the women. Learned counsel submitted that twin Articles 15 & 16 prohibit discriminatory treatment but not preferential or special treatment to women, which is positive measure in their favour. Learned counsel submitted that thus, the action of the respondents in denying the admission to the women in the mining branch as also the preferential treatment therein, is ex facie violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Air India Cabin Crew Association vs. Yeshashwinee Merchant and Others, (2003) 6 SCC 277 . Learned counsel submitted that the respondents cannot be permitted to take the stand that the admission process is over and therefore, at this stage, the petitioner's candidature cannot be considered for admission to the undergraduate course in mining branch. Learned counsel submitted that if the more meritorious persons have not approached the court to question the action of the respondents, the court may not pass a general order for consideration of the candidature of all the candidates but then, the petitioner who has approached this court is entitled to be granted admission and thus, the stand of the respondents that the petitioner does not stand in merit for grant of admission to the undergraduate course in mining branch, is not tenable. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Miss Neelima Shangla, Ph.D. vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 268 and decisions of this court in the matter of Madanpuri and Others vs. Dungarpur Banswara Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others, 1991 (1) WLN 562. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Miss Neelima Shangla, Ph.D. vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1986) 4 SCC 268 and decisions of this court in the matter of Madanpuri and Others vs. Dungarpur Banswara Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Others, 1991 (1) WLN 562. Learned counsel submitted that an interim order was passed by this court in favour of the petitioner on 29.8.2014, directing the respondents to keep one seat of Mining Engineering Branch vacant, if not already filled in and therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to contend that all seats have already been filled up and no seat is lying vacant. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents have not clarified as to when all the seats were filled up. Learned counsel submitted that it was general perception that the candidature of the women shall be considered for mining branch as well and only for this reason, number of women candidates have opted for mining branch. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has come to know about the factum of denial of admission to the women category altogether, only through the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the denial of relief to the petitioner as prayed for, shall amount to perpetuating an illegality. Learned counsel submitted that if this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot be granted relief as prayed for, at least, the petitioner and their likes are entitled for preferential treatment in admission in the mining branch of engineering in the ensuing academic session. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner did not appear in the Joint Entrance Examination-2015 (JEE-2015) inasmuch as, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before this court. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner did not appear in the Joint Entrance Examination-2015 (JEE-2015) inasmuch as, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner is pending consideration before this court. Learned counsel submitted that during the current academic session, the admission are being accorded by the respondents to the various branches of engineering on the basis of JEE-2015 so also on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in Senior Secondary examination and therefore, at least, the petitioner deserves to be permitted to apply for admission against the seats to be filled up on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in Senior Secondary examination. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, reiterating the stand taken in reply to the writ petition, submitted that as per the rules, admission to undergraduate course in mining branch is not granted to the women candidates and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim benefit of reservation for women candidates in mining branch. Learned AAG submitted that the seat matrix for various engineering colleges specifying the availability of the seats in different categories was published on 27.6.2014 wherein in the mining branch of engineering in whichever college available, the seat reserved for SC/ST, OBC and General (Female) were shown as zero and therefore, if the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not providing reservation to the women in mining branch, nothing prevented her from approaching this court immediately. Learned AAG submitted that after the candidate's filling up the option form, first round of the counseling was conducted on 22.7.2014 and the entire admission process stood completed on 14.8.2014 whereas, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner belatedly on 28.8.2014. Learned AAG submitted that as per the notification dated 27.9.2012 issued by the AICTE, the admission process against the vacant seats was required to be completed by 15.8.2014 and thus, no admission in defiance of the norms laid down by the AICTE is permissible. Learned AAG submitted that the admission process cannot be stretched indefinitely. In support of the contention, learned AAG has relied upon a Bench decision of this court in the matter of Bhagwana Ram Suthar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2009 WLC (UC) 689. Learned AAG submitted that the admission process cannot be stretched indefinitely. In support of the contention, learned AAG has relied upon a Bench decision of this court in the matter of Bhagwana Ram Suthar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, 2009 WLC (UC) 689. Learned AAG submitted that the petitioner having participated in the counseling and being declared unsuccessful, has approached this court after the admission process being over and therefore, the writ petition filed belatedly, deserves to be dismissed on this count alone. In this regard, learned AAG has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, AIR 1986 SC 1043 . Relying upon the averments made in the additional affidavit filed, learned AAG submitted that even if the reservation for women category in the mining branch is operated, the petitioner is not entitled to be admitted to the course inasmuch as, only two seats will go in favour of General (Female) category candidates in the respondent College, one in GAS category and another in SFS category and thus, the petitioner who is at serial No. 98 amongst the 132 female candidates opted for admission to undergraduate course in mining branch in the said college, shall not be entitled to admission as per her merit position and thus, merely because, the petitioner has approached this court, ignoring the merit, she cannot be granted admission to the course by operating reservation for women in the mining branch. Learned AAG categorically submitted that from the ensuing academic session, the women candidates shall be granted admission in undergraduate course in mining branch as well and shall also be extended the benefit of reservation available to the women candidates in the said branch. Learned AAG submitted that the writ petition for the grievances raised can only be filed by the person aggrieved and therefore, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner through power of attorney holder, is not maintainable and therefore, deserves to be dismissed for this reason alone. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the matter of Dr. Daksha Sankhla, through Ajay Singh the Power of Attorney Holder vs. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and Others, 2001 (4) WLC (Raj.) 417. 12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. In support of the contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in the matter of Dr. Daksha Sankhla, through Ajay Singh the Power of Attorney Holder vs. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and Others, 2001 (4) WLC (Raj.) 417. 12. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 13. Indubitably, the Constitution of India under Article 15 pledges to prohibit the State from discriminating any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. The language employed makes it abundantly clear that discrimination forbidden by Article 15 is that no citizen could be distinguished unfavourably from others only on the grounds of religion etc. but, the discrimination based on some other rational factor not connected with the religion etc. would be valid. In Air India Cabin Crew Association's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to but-for-sex test as developed in English law to mean that no less favourable treatment is to be given to women on gender based criterion which would favour the opposite sex and the women will not be deliberately selected for less favourable treatment because of their sex, laid down that the constitutional mandate under Article 15 of the Constitution is infringed only where the females would have received same treatment with males but for their sex. But then, the Article 15 does not prohibit special treatment to the women rather, Article 15(3) permits the State to adopt measures of positive discrimination in favour of women, obviously, for neutralizing the effect of the discrimination and hostility practised against them in the past. Suffice it to say that the exclusion of the women exclusively based on sex is forbidden but the exclusion for some other rational consideration is not hit by Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 14. Suffice it to say that the exclusion of the women exclusively based on sex is forbidden but the exclusion for some other rational consideration is not hit by Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 14. In this backdrop, adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the only reason assigned by the respondents justifying the denial of admission to the female candidates in mining branch of engineering is that the provisions of Section 46 of the Mines Act, prohibits the employment of women in any part of a mine which is below the ground and since, the curriculum part in the mining engineering consists of practical knowledge below ground, the prohibition imposed cannot be said to be discriminatory so as to violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 15. Merely because, the employment of the women in any part of the mines below the ground is prohibited under the law, they cannot be deprived of undertaking the studies of the mining branch of engineering altogether inasmuch as, it is absolutely not necessary that after undergoing the studies in mining engineering, the women shall necessarily opt for the work of mining operation below the ground and there are no other avenues available to them in the mining field. In this era of women empowerment when a number of women astronauts including Kalpana Chawla and Sunita Williams have travelled in space and the women have proved their potential in all walks of life including in the field of mining below the ground, the stand sought to be taken by the respondents justifying the right to education to the women in the field of mining branch of engineering while connecting it to the employment likely to be taken by them inter alia in mines below the ground, to say the least, is ridiculous. Moreover, admittedly, the women candidates are permitted to be admitted to the post graduate course in mining branch of engineering and even reservation is provided to women category therein and thus, the stand taken by the respondent to justify the denial of admission to women in undergraduate course in discipline of Mining Engineering on the ground of alleged prohibition by virtue of provisions of Section 46 of the Mines Act, does not stand to reason. Obviously, the admission to the post graduate course can be granted to the female candidates only if they possess the graduation degree in mining engineering and thus, one fails to understand that how the provisions regarding admission to the women candidates in post graduate course in mining engineering shall be given effect without permitting them to undertake the course of undergraduate degree in mining engineering. 16. In view of the discussion above, this court is firmly of the opinion that the denial of admission to the women candidates in the mining branch of engineering is exclusively based on sex and but for the sex, the women candidates would have been considered for admission to the said course at par with the male candidates and they were also entitled for the reservation provided for to the women candidates in the mining branch of engineering as well. Thus, the action of the respondents in denying admission to the women candidates in undergraduate course of engineering in mining branch is avowedly arbitrary, discriminatory so as to violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 17. At this stage, this court consider it appropriate to say a few words regarding the prohibition contained in Section 46 of the Mines Act. There cannot be a denial of the fact that mining industry has always been dominated by males but over the years the positive steps taken world over have helped to integrate women into the industry. It is pertinent to mention here that till 1970, the women involvement in the mining industry all over the world was negligible on account of regulatory legislation or the customary practice, but over the years the position has drastically changed. For example, in South Africa, Ms. Betty Gibbs, a graduate in Mining Engineering, while facing the superstition and hostility towards the entrance of women to mines due to her gender became first woman to work underground at Colorado's Climax mine and opened the doors for generations to come and resultantly, the position in the year 2013 was that at Mines from where Ms. Gibbs had graduated, awarded 17% of Mining Engineering degrees to women compared to 6% in 1998. (vide Mines, Colorado School of Mines Magazine, 25th April, 2014 and Mining.com). Gibbs had graduated, awarded 17% of Mining Engineering degrees to women compared to 6% in 1998. (vide Mines, Colorado School of Mines Magazine, 25th April, 2014 and Mining.com). In this view of the matter, it is high time that taking into consideration the existing scenario world over regarding engagement of the women in underground mining as also the proved women potential in all the walks of life, the legislature should give a fresh look at the provisions of Section 46 of the Mines Act, prohibiting the employment of women in underground mining. 18. This takes this court to consider as to what relief the petitioner is entitled at this stage? 19. Admittedly, the institution-wise tentative Seat Matrix for admission to Engineering colleges was published by the respondents on 27.6.2015 and the candidates were required to give their option for various disciplines in different Colleges between 27.6.2014 to 9.7.2015. The admission process as per the norms laid down by AICTE was completed on 15.8.2014. Admittedly, the petitioner has approached this court on 28.8.2014, after completion of the admission process. The present petition was filed by the petitioner only for the reason that the benefit of reservation extended to the women candidates was not provided for in the Seat Matrix published in the mining branch of engineering. It is only by way of the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondents, it has come on record that as a matter of fact, the women candidates are being deprived from consideration for admission to the B.E. (Mining) altogether. In the considered opinion of this court, the respondents were under an obligation to consider the candidature of the women candidates for admission to B.E. (Mining) as well and were also required to provide reservation to them in the said branch of engineering and therefore, undoubtedly, the petitioner was entitled to be considered for admission to undergraduate programme leading to Bachelor's degree in the discipline of Mining Engineering. 20. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had inter alia given option for admission to B.E. (Mining) only in the respondent College. It is also not in dispute that as many as 132 women candidates opted for admission to mining engineering branch in the respondent College and the petitioner is placed at serial No. 98 in the merit list. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had inter alia given option for admission to B.E. (Mining) only in the respondent College. It is also not in dispute that as many as 132 women candidates opted for admission to mining engineering branch in the respondent College and the petitioner is placed at serial No. 98 in the merit list. It is a matter of record that in all 10 seats each were available for admission to the mining branch of engineering in GAS and SFS category in the respondent College and if the reservation provided, is applied, only 1.25 seats goes in favour of women category for undergraduate course in the discipline of Mining Engineering. Likewise, in mining branch SFS category, only 0.625 seat goes in favour of General (Female) category inasmuch as, in SFS the reservation is available only against 50% seats and accordingly, if the reservation provided to the women candidates is applied for admission to B.E. (Mining) as well, only 2 seats could have been filled up from amongst the female candidates. Thus, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the possibility of the petitioner, who is placed at serial No. 98 amongst the 132 women candidates, who had applied for admission to B.E. (Mining) in the respondent College, was apparently negligible, more so, when the last candidate admitted in General (Female) category in any of the branches of engineering, has the merit position at serial No. 1310. In this view of the matter, taking into consideration, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that merely because, the petitioner, who is much below in merit, has approached this court questioning the action of the respondents in not providing reservation to the female candidates for admission to undergraduate programme leading to Bachelor's Degree in discipline of Mining Engineering, cannot be straight away directed to be granted admission to the course, ignoring the merits of other candidates, who are not before this court and are much above the petitioner in the category of General (Female). Moreover, process for admission to undergraduate courses in various disciplines of Engineering including mining was completed by the respondents within the stipulated period as per the norms laid down by AICTE and no seat during academic session 2014-15 remained unfilled in the respondent College. Moreover, process for admission to undergraduate courses in various disciplines of Engineering including mining was completed by the respondents within the stipulated period as per the norms laid down by AICTE and no seat during academic session 2014-15 remained unfilled in the respondent College. None of the candidates admitted to the course are before this court and therefore, their admission cannot be permitted to be disturbed. No directions could be issued by this court to create the extra seats either. In this view of the matter, viewed from any angle, the petitioner cannot be granted relief as prayed for. 21. At this stage, it will be appropriate to consider the decision of this court in Madanpuri's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the said case, after due selection, a panel of 33 persons was prepared for appointment against 33 posts of officers and other cadres in the Dungarpur-Banswara Kshetriya Gramin Bank, however, the appointment was offered to only 24 candidates. Out of the remaining 9 candidates, 4 candidates approached the court taking the stand that the action of the Bank in not offering appointment to them inspite of the fact that their names have been included in the select list, is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The court found that the petitioner and their likes could not have been denied consideration for appointment inasmuch as, at least 4 vacancies were available. The court further observed that the term of the panel having been expired and a new panel having come into existence and the appointments having been accorded from that panel, the entire process cannot be upset because that will result in confusion and accordingly, restricted the relief to the four petitioners who approached the court. In the considered opinion of this court the ratio decidendi of the decision of this court in Madanpuri's case (supra), does not apply to the present case inasmuch as, as on the date of filing of the petition by the petitioner, no seat was lying vacant. 22. But then, the fact remains that the petitioner has been denied consideration for admission to the course by the respondents in defiance of the constitutional mandate. 22. But then, the fact remains that the petitioner has been denied consideration for admission to the course by the respondents in defiance of the constitutional mandate. According to the petitioner, on account of the pendency of this petition and visualizing the possibility of the success therein, she did not apply for admission to the course in the ensuing academic session. It has come on record that during this academic session, the admissions to the undergraduate programme in different branches of engineering are being granted on the basis of JEE-2015 as also on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in XII examination and two separate merit list are being prepared viz. Firstly, based on JEE-2015 score and secondly, based on XII percentile basis. Obviously, the petitioner having not appeared in JEE-2015 Examination, the question of consideration of her candidature for admission to the course against the seats to be filled in on the basis of the merit of JEE-2015 does not arise. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where the petitioner has been illegally deprived from consideration of her candidature for admission to undergraduate programme in the discipline of Mining Engineering for the academic session 2014-15, it appears to be just and reasonable that she is permitted to apply for admission to undergraduate programme in various branches of engineering including mining in ensuing academic session i.e. 2015-16 and her candidature is considered for admission to the course against the seats to be filled in on the basis of the merit list to be prepared based on XII percentile. 23. In view of the discussion above, the action of the respondents in denying admission to the women candidates in undergraduate programme leading to Bachelor's degree in discipline of Mining Engineering is declared illegal, discriminatory so as to violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the women candidates and grant them admission as per merit in undergraduate programme leading to Bachelor's Degree in all disciplines of Engineering including mining engineering, from the ensuing academic session i.e. 2015-16, both against seats to be filled in from amongst the candidates on the basis of the merit of JEE-2015 as also on the basis of the merit list of the candidates to be prepared based on XII percentile. The respondents shall also provide the reservation of seat for women category in the undergraduate course in discipline of Mining Engineering from the ensuing academic session as prescribed by the Government of Rajashan. The relief claimed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to admit her in the college of Technology & Engineering, Udaipur in B.E. (Mining) under the Women category during the academic session 2014-15 is rejected. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to apply for admission to the undergraduate programme in various disciplines of Engineering including mining engineering for the academic session 2015-16 against the seats to be filled in from amongst the candidates in the merit list to be prepared based on XII percentile. The petitioner shall submit the application in prescribed form to the Coordinator, Rajasthan Engineering Admission Process (REAP) 2015, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall be entitled for costs quantified at Rs. 20,000/- to be paid by the respondent No. 1 & 2. 24. The writ petition stands disposed of with the directions and observations indicated as above.