Special Appeal No. 350 of 2016. Case: Atul Rana and Ors. Vs Chief Secretary and Ors.. Uttarakhand High Court

Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 350 of 2016
CounselFor Appellant: S.S. Yadav, Advocate and For Respondents: Rajeev Singh Bisht, Brief Holder
JudgesRajiv Sharma and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.
IssueConstitution of India - Articles 14, 15, 16, 32
Judgement DateJanuary 07, 2017
CourtUttarakhand High Court

Judgment:

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This special appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 23rd November, 2016 rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2391 of 2016.

2. Appellants approached this Court by way of Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2391 of 2016 seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Clause A- 1, A-2 & A-4 of the Heading of determination of merit of under Graduate classes of directory of 2016-17.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 to provide the same weightage to the petitioners those are students of C.B.S.E. Board like student of Uttarakhand Board in the admission session of respondent No. 4 college.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 to give the provisional admission to the petitioner in the B.com, B. Sc. Ist year in the Session 2016-17 in the Saheed Durgamalla Govt. P.G. College, Doiwala, Dehradun.

3. Case of the appellants/petitioners in the writ petition was that Clauses A-1, A-2 and A-4 of the Brochure-cum-Admission Form for the Academic Session 2016-17, issued by Shaheed Durga Malla Govt. Post Graduate College, Doiwala, Dehradun, were unconstitutional. Appellants have also sought the provisional admission in B.Com/B.Sc. First Year in the Session 2016-17 in the aforesaid college. Respondent No. 4/Principal of the College filed its reply to the writ petition. Learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 23.11.2016. Hence, this special appeal.

4. Petitioners have qualified All India Senior School Certificate Examination (Plus Two Examination) from the Central Board of Secondary Education. They have sought admission in B.Com/B.Sc. First Year in Shaheed Durga Malla Govt. Post Graduate College, Doiwala (Dehradun) for the Academic Session 2016-2017. Appellant No. 1 was granted admission in B.A. First Year for the Academic Year 2016-17, however, the appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not granted admission, as they have secured less marks than the cut off marks. According to the merit index, appellant No. 2 Ajay Vikram has secured 71.00 marks against the cut-off merit index of 74.00. Appellant No. 3 Mohit Chauhan secured 72.2 merit index against the cut-off merit index of 74.00. Appellant No. 4 Adhyan Bhatt secured 65.00 merit index against the cutoff merit index of 65.6.

5. According to the Government Order dated 28.08.2014, for the Session 2014-15, the candidates who had passed Intermediate Examination from the Uttarakhand Secondary Education Board, were to be given the weightage/bonus of '10' marks instead of '05' marks. The order further provides that the weightage being given to the students of Kumaon University would continue as such. However, for the Academic Session 2015-2016, a uniform policy would be adopted for granting the weightage/bonus marks for admission at graduate level.

6. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Clauses A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 of the Brochure-cum-Admission Form for the Academic Year 2016-2017. According to Clause A-1, the students who have qualified the intermediate examination from Uttarakhand Secondary Education Board, would be eligible for grant of additional 10 marks towards the educational qualification. Clause A-2 provides that the students who have passed out from the colleges of Garhwal Region, would be given weightage of 05 marks. According to Clause A-3, the Wards of Teachers/Employees of the Colleges would be given weightage of 03 marks. Clause A-4 of the Prospectus provides for giving weightage of 10 additional marks to the students who have passed out from the feeder schools i.e. Lachhiwala, Dudhli, Rani Pokhari, Bhogpur, Majri, Chhiddu Wala, Dandi Barkot, Bhaniya Wala and Jollygrant. The weightage is required to be added to the percentage of Intermediate Marks obtained by the students.

7. It is settled law that Article 14 permits classification. However, such classification must satisfy the test of intelligible differentia so as to distinguish the persons/things which have been clubbed together and the persons/things which have been left out. There should be reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.

8. Their Lordships of Hon. Apex Court in A.I.R. 1968 Supreme Court 1012 in the case of 'P. Rajendran v. State of Madras' have held that Art. 14 does not forbid classification, but the classification has to be justified on the basis of the nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reasonable classification. The fact however that the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. Their Lordships have held as under:-

"11. The question whether districtwise allocation is violative of Art. 14 will depend on what is the object to be achieved in the matter of admission to medical colleges. Considering the fact that there is a larger number of candidates than seats available, selection has got to be made. The object of selection can only be to secure the best possible material for admission to colleges subject to the provision for socially and educationally backward classes. Further whether selection is from the socially and educationally backward classes or from the general pool, the object of selection must be to secure the best possible talent from the two sources. If that is the object, it must necessarily follow that that object would be defeated if seats are allocated district by district. It cannot be and has not been denied that the object of selection is to secure the best possible talent from the two sources so that the country may have the best possible doctors. If that is the object, the argument on behalf of the petitioners/appellant is that that object cannot possibly be served by allocating seats districtwise. It is true that Art. 14 does not forbid classification, but the classification has to be justified on the basis of the nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reasonable classification. The fact however that the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be achieved in a case of the kind with which we are concerned is to get the best talent for admission to professional colleges, the allocation of seats districtwise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything, such allocation will result in many cases in the object being destroyed, and if that is so, the classification, even if reasonable, would result in discrimination, inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts may be admitted form either of the two sources.

13. Another justification that has been attempted is that candidates coming from various district would settle down in those districts and thus medical help would be available in sufficient measure in all the districts. Now this was not stated in the affidavit on behalf of the State of Madras. Besides there are no facts and figures to suggest that candidates from a particular district would by and large settle down in that district. Further the various options in the matter of nativity certificate to which we have referred, show that candidates will have a number of districts to choose from depending upon where they think that their chances are best and therefore the argument that districtwise allocation is justifiable on this ground is in our opinion of no merit. We are satisfied therefore that the State of Madras has made out no case for districtwise allocation of seats in medical colleges. We are also satisfied that such allocation results in discrimination and there is no nexus between this territorial distribution and the object to be achieved, namely, admission of the best talent from the two sources already indicated. We are therefore of opinion that allocation of seats on districtwise basis is violative of Art. 14. We may add that we do not mean to say that territorial classification is always bad under all circumstances. But there is no doubt that districtwise classification which is being justified on a territorial basis in these cases is violative of Art. 14, for no justification worth the name in support of the classification has been made out. We therefore hold that r. 8 providing for districtwise allocation is bad, as it violates Art. 14 and we hereby strike it down".

9. Their Lordships of Hon. Apex Court in 1971 (1) Supreme Court Cases Page 38 in the case of 'Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. Sobha Joseph' have held that before a classification can be justified, it must be based on an objective criteria and further it must have reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved. The object intended to be achieved in the present case is to select the best candidates for being admitted to Medical Colleges. That object cannot be satisfactorily achieved by the method adopted. The unit wise distribution of seats is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The fact that an applicant is free to apply to any one unit does not take the scheme outside the mischief of Articles 14 and 15. Their Lordships have held as under:-

12. Now coming to the question of delay, we see no reason why there should be any delay in preparing a consolidated list. At any rate the delay caused is not likely to be such as to justify departure from the principle of selection on the basis of merit on a State wise basis. Before a classification can be justified, it must be based on an objective criteria and further it must have reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT