Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1015 (RAJ)

Union Of India v. Kamlesh Vishnoi

2021-07-05

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. The present appeals arise out of a batch of writ petitions decided by the Hon'ble Single Bench vide its judgment dated 15.03.2021. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the controversy involved in the present case has already been decided by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Orissa High Court. He submits that the respondent-petitioners cannot be called as OBC candidates as per the Central list although they may be falling under the OBC category in the State list. Since, the admission pertains to the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, therefore, unless a candidate is falling under the OBC category as per the Central list, the benefit of the same cannot be extended to any other category although they belong to OBC category as per the State list. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submits that the respondent-petitioners were not entitled to get the benefit of reservation and, therefore, they have wrongly been admitted in the schools run by Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya as per the academic session 2020-21. 4. He further submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Bench in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University reported in (1986) Supp. SCC 740 is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. He argued that by virtue of the judgment dated 15.03.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench, a number of persons will be admitted though they are not eligible. 5. We have considered the submissions and prima facie we are of the view that the respondent-petitioners were not falling under the OBC category as per the Central list but they were given admissions in the appellants' schools for the academic year 2020-21. We also note that while getting admission, the respondent-petitioners have not withheld any information or suppressed any facts. The admissions were given by the appellants and the respondent-petitioners, after having studied for a considerable period of time, were served with a notice. We also note that while getting admission, the respondent-petitioners have not withheld any information or suppressed any facts. The admissions were given by the appellants and the respondent-petitioners, after having studied for a considerable period of time, were served with a notice. In our view, though the contention of the counsel for the appellants has ample merit but at the same time, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the ground that respondent-petitioners have completed their studies for the academic year 2020-21 and it would be quite harsh upon those small children at this juncture to be thrown out of the school on the ground that their consideration as OBC candidates was not in accordance with the provisions on the subject. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petitions of the respondent- petitioners has observed under:- "41. It is too late in a day to strictly tow the line of Orissa High Court and Karnataka High Court and set aside the 27% reservation and admissions given to the OBC Candidates even for academic year 2020-21. There are more than one reason for not taking this extreme view - firstly the respondents themselves have given admission to the petitioners and they have been allowed to study so far. If the reservation to OBC Category Candidates per se is quashed for academic year 2020-21, academic career of many such students, who are on the verge of completion of their first year in JNVs, would be marred. That apart, if their admission is cancelled, on the one hand these candidates would be scooped out of the schools and on the other their seats will remain unfilled. 42.This being the position, regardless of the fact that this Court is of the view that no reservation to OBC Candidate could be given, when the admission process was half way, in considered opinion of this Court, the admission given to the petitioners, deserves to be saved." 6. Although, the learned Single Judge has already observed that the petitioners' admission as OBC candidates are considered as exceptional cases, we make it clear that the judgment passed in these cases shall not be treated as a precedent. 7. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.