Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 771 (ALL)

Shalini Mishra v. Union of India

2016-03-02

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT The writ petition before the learned Single Judge was filed by ten petitioners who are the appellants in the special appeal. All of them hold a master's degree in Sanskrit Literature and were desirous of seeking admission to the D Phil course conducted by the Allahabad University which is represented by the second and third respondents. All of them belong to the general category and were denied admission for the batch of students admitted in 2014-15. That resulted in the writ petition which they filed. 2. Parliament enacted the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006. Section 3 provides a reservation in Central educational institutions of fifteen per cent for the Scheduled Castes, seven and one-half per cent for the Scheduled Tribes and twenty seven per cent for the Other Backward Classes. The Act came into force on 3 January 2007. Prior to the enactment of the Act, there was no reservation for the Other Backward Classes in the Central educational institutions. Section 5 stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 (iii) or in any other law for the time being in force (Section 3 (iii) provides for OBC's reservation of twenty seven per cent), every Central Educational Institution shall, with the prior approval of the appropriate authority, increase the number of seats in a branch of study or faculty over and above its annual permitted strength so that the number of seats, excluding those reserved for the reserved categories, is not less than the number of such seats available for the academic session immediately preceding the date on which the Act came into force. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Allahabad University states that the University passed a resolution on 16 May 2012 by which a decision was taken inter alia that wherever possible a maximum number of eight candidates may be registered under a research supervisor subject to availability of appropriate facilities and infrastructure. 4. The short question in the writ proceedings was whether the provisions of 5 (1) were implemented in letter and spirit. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had not stated the exact number of seats available in the D Phil course of Sanskrit and unless the sanctioned seats are disclosed, it could not be held that the University is adopting a wrong method in granting admission. 6. 5. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had not stated the exact number of seats available in the D Phil course of Sanskrit and unless the sanctioned seats are disclosed, it could not be held that the University is adopting a wrong method in granting admission. 6. In our view, having due regard to the fact that the matter relates to the admission of students for post graduate research leading upto the D Phil degree, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice, if the learned Single Judge were to have the benefit of considering the response of the University to the writ petition. We clarify that we are not expressing any view on the merits of the issues raised. 7. At this stage, we may also note the submission which had been urged before the learned Single Judge by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University that in the specialization of Sanskrit Literature, there were total four vacancies of which, two were allotted to the general category and one each to the Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes. We grant liberty to the University to file a counter affidavit within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and remit the proceedings back to the learned Single Judge for a decision afresh. 8. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8 January 2016 and restore Writ-C No.29819 of 2015 to the file of the learned Single Judge, keeping all the rights and contentions of the parties open. 9. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Delay Condonation Application No.57469 of 2016 Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ., Yashwant Varma, J. Shalini Mishra And 9 Ors. Vs Union of India And 2 Ors. Special Appeal Defective No. - 170 of 2016 2.3.2016 For the Petitioner : Shiva Nand Pandey. For the Respondent : A.S.G.I., Neeraj Tripathi, Rakesh Kumar Pandey. The delay of eleven days in filing the special appeal is condoned since sufficient cause has been shown in the affidavit in support. The delay condonation application stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.