Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1531 (HP)

Arpita Singh v. Union of India

2018-08-21

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, VIVEK SINGH THAKUR

body2018
JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Complaint herein is that the petitioner irrespective of being permanent resident of Himachal Pradesh and as such bonafide Himachali has been denied admission in B. Des. (Fashion Communication or Accessories Designing) at National Institute of Fashion Technology, Chheb, Kangra (H.P), the 3rd respondent, at the pretext that for the purpose of admission against State Domicile preferential seats six in number, called as supernumerary seats, having not passed 10+2 examination from the schools situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh, she is not eligible in terms of the prospectus issued by NIFT, the second respondent. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Ward No. 4, PO Arla, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, hence a bonafide Himachali. The bonafide Himachali certificate is Annexure P-6. She has passed 10th class examination from Mount Carmel School, Thakurdwara, Kangra, the certificate is Annexure P-1. Even 8th class examination has also been passed by her from this very school. However, on 4.12.2015, her father Sh. Sanjit Kumar on his promotion as SMG, Scale IV was transferred to FGMO Meerut (U.P.) On joining duty by him there, the petitioner also got admission in 10+ 2 class at Meerut Public School for Girls, Meerut Cantt UP. She has passed Sr. Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) in the month of May, 2018 as is apparent from the certificate annexure P-2. She qualified the All India Entrance Examination conducted by NIFT, the second respondent and applied for admission in B. Des.(Fashion Communication or Accessories Designing) course against State Domicile Quota (SC) reserved seat. She was called for counseling on 28.5.2018 vide Annexure P-3, however, denied the admission on the ground that being not State domicile, she is not entitled to seek admission against State Domicile preferential seats. Her father Sh. Sanjit Kumar made the representation Annexure P-8 to the second respondent highlighting therein the circumstances under which the petitioner had to seek admission in Meerut Public School for Girls, Meerut Cantt U.P., but of no avail. 3. Her father Sh. Sanjit Kumar made the representation Annexure P-8 to the second respondent highlighting therein the circumstances under which the petitioner had to seek admission in Meerut Public School for Girls, Meerut Cantt U.P., but of no avail. 3. It is in this backdrop, the present writ petition came to be filed with a prayer to quash the eligibility criteria in the prospectus for the academic session 2018-19 prescribed for seeking admission against State Domicile preferential seats, with further direction to the respondents to allow the applicant to continue B. Des.(Fashion Communication or Accessories Designing) course from respondent No. 3 Institute by treating her eligible for admission against State Domicile preferential seats reserved for the candidate of S.C. community. Respondent No. 3 Institute is situated at Chheb in District Kangra (H.P). Amongst other disciplines, the B. Des.(Fashion Communication or Accessories Designing) course is also available in the said Institute. The petitioner has appeared in All India Entrance Examination conducted by the second respondent. She opted for admission in B. Des.(Fashion Communication or Accessories Designing) course against State Domicile preferential seats reserved for the candidates of S.C. community. She belongs to S.C. category of Himachal Pradesh. On declaration of the result of All India Entrance Examination conducted by NIFT and having declared qualified, she made online application for seeking admission in the course in question from respondent No. 3 Institute. She even was called for counseling also, however, admittedly declined the admission for the sole reason that she is not eligible being not State domicile for seeking admission in respondent No. 3 Institute against supernumerary seats allocated under State Domicile preference. 4. As per admitted case of the parties, for the current session 20% of the total seats in the discipline of B. Des.(Fashion Communication or Accessories Designing) in respondent No. 3 College, 20% i.e. 6 supernumerary seats have been allocated to respondent No. 3 Institute as per the abstract of the prospectus Annexure P-4. Supernumerary seats in addition to 30 seats will be offered for admission as State Domicile preferential seats to a candidate who belongs to the State where the NIFT campus is situated. Also that the State in which the candidate has completed his/her Class 12th Examination, graduation, qualifying degree is the domicile of the candidate. Such provision in the prospectus reads as follows: “State Domicile Preferential Seats. Also that the State in which the candidate has completed his/her Class 12th Examination, graduation, qualifying degree is the domicile of the candidate. Such provision in the prospectus reads as follows: “State Domicile Preferential Seats. Twenty percent (20%) i.e. 06 supernumerary seats in addition to 30 seats will be offered for admission as State Domicile Preferential Seats to candidates who belong to the States where the following NIFT campuses are located: S. No. NIFT Campus State 1. -------------- -------------- 2. Kangra Himachal Pradesh 3. -------------- -------------- 4. -------------- -------------- 5. -------------- -------------- 6. -------------- -------------- 7. -------------- -------------- 8. -------------- -------------- Thirty Five percent (35%), seats within 30 seats will be offered for admission as State Domicile Preferential Seats to the domicile candidates of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). The State in which the candidate has completed his/her class 12th examination/graduation/qualifying degree is the domicile of the candidate. A certificate from the School/College may be obtained. In case the candidate obtained the qualifying certificate/degree through Distance Learning mode, the address of the school attended by the candidate regularly will determine his/her domicile status. Candidates who are domicile of the states where the NIFT Campuses exist will be allowed to opt for these preferential seats while filing online application form. However, they will have a choice to take admission under General/ST/SC/OBC category (as applicable) as per merit to any course/campus of their choice. Reservation of SCs/STs/OBCs (non creamy layer) candidates, shall be applicable for the domicile seats also.” 5. The petitioner, admittedly, is not a domicile candidate of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of the provisions ibid in the prospectus having not completed her class 12th examination from the State of Himachal Pradesh and rather from Meerut U.P. Therefore, irrespective of she had submitted her application online, the admission in the course to her has been declined by the respondents. 6. 6. Although the provision in the prospectus that State domicile shall only be the one who had passed the qualifying examination from the State where the Institute in which the State Domicile preferential seats are available has been assailed not only as un-Constitutional and arbitrary but illogical and irrational also being allegedly not based upon any intelligible differentia, however, the challenge so laid is not legally permissible because in a similar case pertaining to the admission in MBBS/BDS course in the medical/dental colleges situated in the State of Assam, the Apex Court recently in Writ Petition (C) No. 766 of 2018, Rajdeep Ghosh vs. State of Assam & ors., decided on 17.8.2018, while upholding the Constitutional validity of educational/domicile criteria has observed that it is permissible to lay down the essential educational requirements, residential/domicile criteria in a particular State in respect of State quota seats. It has also been observed by the Apex Court that the object sought to be achieved is that the incumbent must serve the State concerned and for the emancipation of the educational standards of the people who are residing in a particular State, such reservation is legal and valid. (Emphasis supplied) 7. Therefore, in view of the ratio of the judgment ibid, no contrary view of the matter as sought in this writ petition can be taken. Be it stated that it is ill-luck of the petitioner that she could not pursue her studies in 10+2 class in a school situated in Himachal Pradesh, may be on account of transfer of her father to Meerut in the month of December 2015 and as such for the purpose of the criteria laid down in the prospectus for seeking admission against State Domicile preferential seats, she is State domicile of U.P., having qualified 10+2 examination from Meerut Public School for Girls, Meerut Cantt U.P. In her domicile State i.e. U.P., there is no NIFT campus where she could have sought admission in the course in question. However, in view of the provisions in the prospectus, she is not eligible to seek admission against SC category reserved seat in respondent No. 3 Institute, being not domicile of State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of admission against State Domicile preferential seats. However, in view of the provisions in the prospectus, she is not eligible to seek admission against SC category reserved seat in respondent No. 3 Institute, being not domicile of State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose of admission against State Domicile preferential seats. The criteria, so laid down, may be harsh and oppressive to her, however, has to be applied with all rigors for the reason that the same is based upon a policy decision taken by the respondents applicable to all the institutes situated in the country. Admittedly, the State Domicile preferential seats, including the seat reserved for SC category are lying vacant for want of eligible candidates. In order to find justification in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in the recent past the vacant seats under State Domicile preference, allocated to respondent No. 3 Institute, have been filled in without insisting for such eligibility criteria, the following order was passed on 7.8.2018 and the relevant record requisitioned: “Heard for sometime. Though prima-facie on merits, no case in favour of the petitioner is made out as she does not fall under the category of State domicile in terms of the prospectus having passed her 10+2 examination from Meerut Public School for Girls, Meerut Cantt (U.P). The supernumerary seats i.e. one meant for S.C category to which the petitioner belongs is lying vacant. Learned counsel representing the petitioner is very specific in submitting that in the recent past also, the State domicile preferential seats lying vacant for want of eligible candidates were released and the candidates belonging to other categories admitted against the same. Being so, it has become imperative to go through the record pertaining to the last academic session i.e. 2017-18. The respondent-Institute to produce the same on the next date. List on 21.08.2018.” 8. Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Joint Director, NIFT, Kangra (H.P) is present and has produced the record. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel on instructions from Mr. Dinesh Kumar has submitted that against 130 seats only 125 students could be admitted during the last year and the seats in State domicile preference category remained vacant for want of eligible candidates. Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner was given time to go through the record so produced by respondent No. 3 Institute. Dinesh Kumar has submitted that against 130 seats only 125 students could be admitted during the last year and the seats in State domicile preference category remained vacant for want of eligible candidates. Mr. Vinay Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner was given time to go through the record so produced by respondent No. 3 Institute. The case when recalled, he failed to satisfy us that State domicile preferential vacant seats as per the record so produced were filled in from the students belonging to other categories without insisting for the eligibility criteria prescribed in the prospectus. He, however, pointed out from the record that the seats reserved for S.C. category were allowed to be filled in from amongst the general category candidates. In order to substantiate such submissions, the students having surnames “Rathore” and “Bhardwaj” etc. have been pointed out from the record. The submissions so made are without any substance for the reason that the reserved category people also have surnames like “Rathore” and “Bhardwaj” etc., therefore, it cannot be believed that the candidates having “Rathore” and “Bhardwaj” as surnames were not reserved category candidates and rather belonging to general category. Such, even is not the case of the petitioner also pleaded in the Writ Petition hence of no help to her case. 9. This being the legal and factual position, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any shall also stand dismissed. Before parting, though the writ petition has been dismissed, however, in the peculiar circumstances, we leave it open to the respondents to consider the petitioner for admission in the course in any Institute, including respondent No. 3-Institute, against the seat reserved for S.C. category, if lying vacant and she otherwise being qualified is in merit.