IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA and J.B.PARDIWALA, JJ.
YATHARTH NAISHADH DESAI S/O NAISHADH DESAI & ORS. - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. - Defendant(s)
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9942 of 2014
Decide On : 14/08/2014
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -Admission - Eligibility - amendment in rules - when consider - Courses of Bachelor of Engineering and Technology - Action taken by the respondents in publishing the result of the process of admission by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ Petition on the basis of the post-judgment amendment of the relevant Rule is legal or not and also required to consider, whether the amended Rule 11, laying down the procedure for preparation of merit list is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India - In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it will be necessary to place on record the original Rules as it stood prior to the amendment and the amended version of the present Rules effected by two different amendments, one and the other after the passing of the judgment - For the purpose of deciding the aforesaid question, the entire Rules are not required to be reproduced, but we propose to produce only the relevant provisions that will be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this Special Civil Application - Held, Result of process of admission by not following decision of Court and on basis of post Judgment amendment of the relevant Rule - Court having considered the Rule made applicable opined that merely because a Rule giving method of marking has been changed without affecting the eligibility criteria of any of the candidates the same can cause prejudice because the amended Rule will be universally applicable can not be accepted - Besides final result is published the process of marking can be amended provided the amended Rule is not ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution of India - object of the amended Rule is to give benefit to the students of the Gujarat Board in preference to CISCE and the CBSE Board candidates overlooking the fact that even those candidates are all the citizen of India and even from the State of Gujarat and simply because they have decided to study under a particular Board, they cannot be prejudiced for the purpose of protection of the students of a particular Board in the same State. We have also demonstrated how by the application of this amended Rule, even the meritorious students of the Gujarat Board has been prejudiced and the students performing better in the examination have figured below the less meritorious students of the same board. The State should not lose sight of the fact that in the process of selection, the State should not adopt a Rule by which even though a particular student is more meritorious than another, the latter would rank above the former. The State in no case should place a superior student below an inferior one in the merit list. Present example is definitely an instance of arbitrary action on the part of the State-respondent to suit its purpose which is not approved by Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Application Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.
1. By this Special Civil Application, as amended, 29 students, who have appeared for admission to the Bachelor of Engineering and Technology courses 2014-15, have prayed for the following reliefs :-
“18. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioners pray that:
A. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an order, writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the provisions for preparation of merit-list under Rule 11 as illegal, arbitrary and ultra-virus [sic[ to Art 14 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and declare that the method adopted by the respondents directly multiplying the percentile cannot be used for preparing the common merit list of different board & population.
B. Be pleased to declare that the respondents have adopted illegal method for preparation of merit-list for admission to degree engineering course for the year 2014-15 and be pleased to quash and set aside the provisions of Rule 11 as amended on 4-7-2014 and quash and set aside the final merit-list published by respondents on 12-7-2014.
18/B(1) Be pleased to declare Rule 11(3) as amended vide Notification dated 4-7-2014, as ultra-virus [sic] to Art 14 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same.
18/B(1) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the final merit-list published by respondents dated 12-7-2014 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct respondents to publish merit-list as per directions of this Hon. Court in WP (PIL)/175/2014.
C. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, be pleased to restrain the respondents from allotting seats as per final merit-list published on 12-7-2014 for admission to degree engineering courses for the year 2014-15.
D. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition be pleased to suspend further implementation and operation of final merit-list for admission to degree engineering course and restrain respondents from issuing any admission to the students on the basis of final merit-list.
E. Any other and further relief which this Hon. Court deem fit and proper, in interest of justice.”
2. The grievance, in substance, of the petitioners in this Special Civil Application is that after this Court in a Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition (PIL) No.175 of 2014, by order dated 20th June 2014, set aside the mode of preparation of select list suggested by experts and the said decision being the subject-matter of challenge in the Supreme Court in Special Leave by way of SLP No.15583 of 2014 and there being no stay of the order dated 20th June 2014 granted by the Supreme Court of India, the respondent-authorities could not by amending the rules set at naught the effect of the judgment dated 20th June 2014.
3. Therefore, the question that arises for determination in the present Special Civil Application is, whether the action taken by the respondents in publishing the result of the process of admission by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court dated 20th June 2014 in Writ Petition (PIL) No.175 of 2014 on the basis of the post-judgment amendment of the relevant Rule is legal or not. We are also required to consider, whether the amended Rule 11, laying down the procedure for preparation of merit list is ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.
4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it will be necessary to place on record the original Rules as it stood prior to the amendment and the amended version of the present Rules effected by two different amendments, one dated 25th June 2014 and the other dated 4th July 2014 after the passing of the judgment dated June 20, 2014.
5. For the purpose of deciding the aforesaid question, the entire Rules are not required to be reproduced, but we propose to produce only the relevant provisions that will be necess
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. SARANG reported in 2001 (8) SCC 427
STATE OF W.B. v. SRI LAL CHAND reported in AIR 1987 SC 1316
Sanchit Bansal and Anr. v. Joint Admission Board (JAB) and Ors reported in AIR 2012 SC 214
S.S. BOLA AND OTHERS v. B.D. SARDANA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1997 SC 3127
STATE OF HARYANA v. SUBASH CHANDER reported in AIR 1973 SC 2216
SUDHIR G ANGUR v. M. SANJEEV reported in AIR 2006 SC 351
RAJESH KUMAR SINGHAI v. STATE reported in AIR 1992 MP 364
RAJIV KAPOOR v. STATE OF HARYANA reported in 2000 (9) SCC 115
VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIV. OF ALLAHABAD v. DR. ANAND PRAKASH MISHRA reported in 1997(10) SCC 264
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA v. INDIAN TOBACCO ASSOCN. reported in AIR 2005 SC 3685
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA v. GOWRAMMA reported in AIR 2008 SC 863
P. K. Goel and others v. U.P. Medical Council and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 1475
Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay reported in (1989) 3 SCC 293
Kumari Shrilekha Vidhyarthi and Others v. State of U.P. and Others reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.