Back
1998 Supreme(Bom) 474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
N.P. Chapalgaonker B.H. Marlapalle, JJ.
Ms. Alka Arun Pagare ..... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3125 of 1998, decided on 25-8-1998.
Advocates appeared :
K.G. Gavali, for petitioner.
K.H. Dhuldhwaj, for respondent No. 4.
Shirsath, for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
S.C. Bora, for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
K.G. Patil A.G.P., for respondent Nos. 1.
Headnote:Articles 30(1) and 226-Petitioner embraced Christianity merely to seek admission to D.Ed. Course in Christian managed educational institution in the Management Quota - This would amount to misuse of constitutional protection-Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 not warranted.- The petitioner belonged to Hindu Mahar religion. For seeking admission to the D.Ed. Course from the management quota of a Christian Institution she embraced Christianity and accordingly sought admission. The College and the Trust which was running the said College resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not belong to Christian religion and the School Leaving Certificate stated that the petitioner belonged to Hindu Mahar religion. It was stated that the petitioner had taken benefits as applicable to the Scheduled Caste category tilt she passed 12th Standard and she had changed her religion at the time of submission of the admission form to the answering respondents solely for the purpose of seeking admission against the management quota. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner did not belong to the Christian religion and she had embraced Christianity only on or after 18.6.1998 with the sole purpose of seeking admission in the respondent No.5-College against the management quota and the petitioner, therefore, could not invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Held, that the documents cumulatively showed that on 15.6.1998 petitioner did not belong to Christian religion. She was a Hindu-Mahar and she took steps to embrace Christianity solely for the purpose of seeking admission in the Christian managed education institution and her comrersion was -notified in Government Gazette on 18.6.1998. Article 30(1) of the Constitution gives all minorities, whether based on religion or language, a right to establish and administer their own educational institutions. This right protects the minorities. The Constitution of India recognizes the distinct ethnical groups based on religion or language which need protection. The provision is of protection for the existing groups. It is not to be utilised for extension of the group by conversion or by any other method and it should also not be utilised by a person who does not belong to this group by birth but by conversion or any other made, enters into this minority, just for the reasons to taking benefits which are given by the Constitution. Both the modes by the minority and by the individual, would be not only a misuse of the constitutional protection but also would be a fraud on the Constitution itself. Even assuming that the petitioner belonged to Christian religion, the High Court did not see any reason to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to help the student, who in unequivocal terms had stated that she was embracing the Christianity merely for the purposes of admission to Christian managed educational institution. Religion is a way of life. It reflects the faith of the individual who professes it. Though an individual has a right to get himself converted to another religion if there is a change in his brief, the conversion to other religion cannot be utilised for material benefits and such conversion cannot be encouraged for benefits like service, marriage or admission to educational institutions. Petition hence dismissed.
2.The petitioner has passed H.S.C. examination and scored 60 % marks. In response to the advertisement published by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 13/6/98 for admissions to the first year Diploma in Education Course, the petitioner submitted her application for being considered for admission against a seat reserved in the management quota. The said advertisement further stated that the candidates seeking admissions should have secured minimum 40 per cent marks in the 12th Std. and should belong to the Christian religion. It further stated that along with the admission form, a zerox copy of the marks memo of 12th Std., and a copy of School Leaving Certificate should be annexed. The petitioner states that she had complied with the requirements as stated in the advertisement and she belongs to Christian Religion. However, her claim for admission against the management quota has not been considered, in as much as in the merit list displayed by the respondent No. 4 and 5 for admission to the first year D.Ed. Course in Arts faculty, the name of the petitioner does not appear in the 14 students provisionally selected and there are five students whose names appear in the provisional list have scored less than 60 per cent marks. The petitioner claims that she ought to have been shown in the merit list published below the name of the one Shalini David Jadhav for Arts faculty. The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court seeking the relief in respect of directions against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to admit her in the First Year of Diploma in Education Course and quash and set aside the selection of other students who are less meritorious than the petitioner.
3.The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have appeared and resisted the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not belong to Christian Religion and the School Leaving Certificate stated that the petitioner belong to Hindu-Mahar religion. This certificate was issued on 12/6/1998 and the contents therein are not denied by the petitioner. The answering respondents have further stated that the petitioner had taken benefits as applicable to the Scheduled Caste category till she passed 12th Std. and she has changed her religion at the time of submission of the admission form to the answering respondents solely for the purpose of seeking admissions against the management quota. The respondents, therefore, claimed that the petitioner did not belong to the Christian Religion and she has embraced Christianity only on or after 18/6/98 with the sole purpose of seeking admission in the respondent No. 5 College against the management quota and the petitioner, therefore cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4.By our order dt. 5/8/98 we had directed notices to be issued to all other students who are provisionally admitted by the respondent No. 5 - College and petitioner also published a notice in the newspaper having wide circular in that area so that remaining students could be heard. These students have appeared through their Counsel.
5.The only question that arises for our consideration is that whether the petitioners was entitled to be considered for admission to the First Year of D.Ed. Course against the seat reserved under the Management Quota with the respondent No. 5 -College. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the School Leaving Certificate accompanied with the admission form the petitioner was shown to belong to Hindu-Mahar Religion/Caste erroneously and the petitioner is a Christian by birth. In support of this contention, learned Counsel has relied upon a copy of the School Leaving Certificate issued by the Shram Pratisthan's Delwadi Vibhag High School, Delwad
