Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Kiran Kasniya - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 4354 of 2020, 4275 of 2020, 4319 of 2020, 4358 of 2020, 4365 of 2020, 4369 of 2020, 4373 of 2020, 4374 of 2020, 4378 of 2020, 4380 of 2020, 4387 of 2020, 4389 of 2020, 4400 of 2020, 4519 of 2020, 4520 of 2020, 4655 of 2020, 4424 of 2020, 4652 of 2020, 4476 of 2020, 4548 of 2020, 4583 of 2020, 4619 of 2020, 4653 of 2020, 4656 of 2020, 4657 of 2020, 4667 of 2020
Decided On : 29-06-2020
ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DIPLOMA PROGRAMME - ADMISSION - VACANT SEATS - FILLING UP - PRACTICE AND NORM - LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION - STUDENTS ADMITTED ON VACANT SEATS AFTER SECOND COUNSELLING - VALIDITY - DIRECTIONS ISSUED.
Fact of the Case:
Students who were admitted to the Two Years' Animal Husbandry Diploma Programme (AHDP Course) on vacant seats after the second counselling challenged the decision of the State and University not to allow such admissions. The students argued that there was a past practice and prevailing norm that the vacant State seats were to be filled by the Institutions considering them to be Management seats. The State and University contended that a clear stand was taken by them that the admission to AHDP Course for academic session 2019-20 against the vacant seats shall not be granted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that there was an unchallenged and all acceptable norm prevailing for admissions in AHDP Course, in which the vacant State seats were to be filled by the respective college(s) from amongst the candidates who applied under the management quota, while treating them to be management seats. The Court also found that the students had a legitimate expectation that they would be treated in the like manner, while dealing with vacant seats of AHDP Course, as the past practice of the State as well as University was to fill up the vacant seats after the second counselling.
Issues: 1. Whether there was a past practice and prevailing norm that the vacant State seats were to be filled by the Institutions considering them to be Management seats? 2. Whether the students had a legitimate expectation that they would be treated in the like manner, while dealing with vacant seats of AHDP Course? 3. Whether the decision of the State and University not to allow such admissions was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that there was an unchallenged and all acceptable norm prevailing for admissions in AHDP Course, in which the vacant State seats were to be filled by the respective college(s) from amongst the candidates who applied under the management quota, while treating them to be management seats. 2. The Court held that the students had a legitimate expectation that they would be treated in the like manner, while dealing with vacant seats of AHDP Course, as the past practice of the State as well as University was to fill up the vacant seats after the second counselling. 3. The Court held that the decision of the State and University not to allow such admissions was not valid.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and issued directions that: (i) All eligible candidates who have paid their fee and have taken admission in the Course on the vacant seats after the second counselling and prior to the communication dated 20.03.2020, such admissions shall stand validated. (ii) The State shall give requisite permission for conducting the AHDP Course for Academic Session 2019-20 accordingly, to the University and the College(s) concerned for legalizing the admissions on vacant seats after the second counselling. All other eligibility criteria and essential conditions shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned. (iii) The present judgment shall apply to all the students, who have already taken admission in AHDP Course for the Academic Session 2019-20 on vacant seats after second counselling; however, in future, while taking the necessary decision, the respondents are directed to lay down their specific policy and norm/ rule regarding filling up of the vacant seats categorically in the advertisement itself or before the final counselling, so that the students stand cautioned at the threshold itself, regarding their ultimate fate and are not left in a lurch on account of delayed decision-making.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - The present petitions have been preferred on behalf of
the students and the Institutions having common cause of protecting the admissions of the students in the Two Years' Animal Husbandry Diploma Programme (for short, 'AHDP Course'), who have sought admission in the said Course but are being discontinued by the respondents.
2. Though the present writ petitions have been reserved for judgment on different dates, but looking to the commonality of the issue(s) involved herein, they have been considered analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:
"i) That the respondent no.1 to 4 may be directed to give admission to the petitioners in the AHDP Course in session 2019-20.
ii) Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice.
iii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners."
4. Mr. R.J. Punia and Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsels for the petitioners have referred to their lead case to be S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4275/2020 (Devi Lal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
Mr. Anil Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State/respondents has also referred to his reply and pleadings in this case as complete.
However, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has referred to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4354/2020 (Kiran Kasniya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), as a case where his reply and documentations were complete.
Thus, the respective pleadings of the parties are being considered for final adjudication of the case, to which they have conceded.
5. The bone of contention in the present case is that the petitioners, after completing their senior secondary examinations, underwent the process for admission in the Two Years' AHDP Course for Academic Session 2019-20, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22.07.2019. Vide the said advertisement, the applications were invited from all eligible candidates, which were to be filled online from 23.07.2019 to 12.08.2019. The concerned Institutions affiliated to the respondent-University were allotted 50 seats each for conducting the Two Years' AHDP Course.
6. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that it has been a past practice as well as a prevailing norm that the vacant State seats were to be filled by the Institutions considering them to be Management seats; the candidates, who did not join the AHDP Course till the last date of joining, were to be replaced by other eligible candidates, by the concerned Institution(s).
7. To support the contention of the past practice as well as prevailing norm, learned counsels for the petitioners have drawn the attention of this Court towards the letter dated 27.10.2009 [Annexure-3 of WP No.4275/2020] issued by the University, relevant portion whereof reads as under:-
"................
In the event of some of the students not opting to join this course despite of allotment of the college, the state seats may remain vacant.
It is, therefore, directed that the vacant state seats after the last date of joining i.e. 12th November, 2009, should be transferred to management seats and filled with the candidates who have applied for management seats . The eligibility criteria shall be the same as has been published in the prospectus available on the website as well as provided in the guidelines for filling up of management seats. ............... "
Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the letters dated 23.10.2010, 17.10.2011, 01.11.2012, 24.11.2014 and 12.01.2017, relevant portion whereof also read as follows:
23.10.2010
" ..............
It is, therefore, directed that the vacant seats after the last
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
