Back
1993 Supreme(Pat) 22
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and G.C.Bharuka JJ.
Arun Kumar Sinha
Versus
Rajendra Agriculture University
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7895 of 1992 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 20, 1993
The Vice-Chancellor has the power to create additional seats in an emergency, subject to the post-facto approval of the Academic Council. The reservation policy for Backward Class II candidates is valid. The students who have been admitted under the reserved quota should be allowed to continue their studies in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY ACT, 1987 - SECTION 14(3)(IV), 26(2) - RAJENDRA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON RESIDENT INSTRUCTION - RULE 12 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 15(4) - RESERVATION OF SEATS FOR BACKWARD CLASS II CANDIDATES - VALIDITY - CREATION OF ADDITIONAL SEATS - POWER OF VICE-CHANCELLOR - SCOPE - PROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF RESERVATION POLICY - ADMISSION OF STUDENTS UNDER RESERVED QUOTA - INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the University directing him to appear in an interview for admission to a professional course, as he belonged to the Backward Class II category. The petitioner contended that the reservation policy for Backward Class II candidates was not mentioned in the prospectus or the notices, and therefore, the impugned order was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to create additional seats in an emergency, subject to the post-facto approval of the Academic Council. The court also held that the reservation policy for Backward Class II candidates had prospective effect and was valid. The court further held that the students who had been admitted under the reserved quota should be allowed to continue their studies in the interest of justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the Vice-Chancellor had the power to create additional seats without the approval of the Academic Council? 2. Whether the reservation policy for Backward Class II candidates was valid? 3. Whether the students who had been admitted under the reserved quota should be allowed to continue their studies?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to create additional seats in an emergency, subject to the post-facto approval of the Academic Council. The court relied on Section 26(2) of the Rajendra Agricultural University Act, 1987, which empowers the Vice-Chancellor to take any action in an emergency which calls for immediate action. 2. The court held that the reservation policy for Backward Class II candidates was valid. The court relied on Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, which empowers the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. 3. The court held that the students who had been admitted under the reserved quota should be allowed to continue their studies in the interest of justice. The court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman Combined Entrance Examination v. Orissa Osiris Das, where the Supreme Court held that students who had been admitted under a reservation policy that was later struck down should be allowed to continue their studies.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to create additional seats, the reservation policy for Backward Class II candidates was valid, and the students who had been admitted under the reserved quota should be allowed to continue their studies.
S. B. Sinha, G. C. Bharuka, JJ.
1. This application is directed against an order dated 7th August, 1992 passed by the Respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner was directed to appear in the interview scheduled to be held on 25th of August, 1992 provided be belonged to Backward Class category II.
2. The fact of the matter lies in narrow compass.
3. The respondent No.1 University issued notices in several newspaper to the effect that and combined competitive entrance examination would be conducted by the University tor admission to B. Sc. , Agriculture, vetenary Sugeon (B. V. Sc. and A. H.) B. Sc. Dairy. Technics B. E. Agriculture Engineering, B. Sc. Home Science (for girls only) B. P. Sc. asking persons interested in taking admission in any of the aforementioned causes of studies to apply therefor.
4. For the aforementioned purpose a prospectus was, also issued which is contained in Annexture-1 to the writ application.
5. The petitioner pursuant to the said notice applied for and appeared at the aforementioned Combined Competitive Entrance Examination which was held on 10th April, 1992.
6. By reason of the impugned order dated 25th August, 1992, the petitioner was called for Interview by a letter dated 7th August, 1992 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application provided he belonged to backward Class II Category.
7. The petitioner has contended that as the reservation policy of the state relating to Backward Class II Category, had not been mentioned in the notice or in the prospectus, the purported letter dated 7th August, 1992 as contained in Annexnre-2 to the writ application must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction as interview could not have been granted only to those candidates who belong to Backward Class II category.
8. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent - University wherein it has been contended that in the application itself information had to be given by the candidates as to whether he belonged to scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class I Category or not.
9. It has further been contended that 14% seats have been reserved for Scheduled Caste and 10% for Scheduled Tribes and Backward Class I category.
10. However, after the results published serious disturbance had been created by a group of students who also submitted a representation demanding that the admissions should be taken in accordance with the resolution of the State Government contained in Circular bearing No.11-V-1-1022/91 k. V. being Memo No, 20 dated 6-2-1992 and owing thereto taking of admission had been postponed by the local college authorities. Subsequently meeting of the Vice-Chancellors and Registrars of the concerned universities namely respondent No.1 University and Birsa Agriculture university, Ranchi, had been called on 28-7-1992 by the Minister of Agriculture, and in the said meeting it was decided that since reservation for admission of B. C. II candidates was not provided, the University may call for informations from the list of successful candidates belonging to the general category so as to enable them to identify as to whether any of them belong to B. C. II candidates and admitted 23 candidates in various courses mentioned in the light of the aforementioned Government circular regarding reservation of seats for admission to professional course.
11. It has been contended that in this context the impugned order as contained In Annexure-2 was issued. The letter dated 24-7-1992 of the private Secretary to the Minister of the Agriculture and the circular issued pursuant thereto is contained In Annexture-R/d to the said counter-affidavit.
12. It has been contended that in terms of Paragraph 11 of the resolution which is contained in Annexure-R/c to the counter-affidavit, the reservation policy of the State of Bihar has been given a retrospective effect. It has also been contended that 23 additional seats have been created only for the purpose of giving effect to the said rese
