Back
2004 Supreme(Raj) 360
Rajasthan High Court
Honble SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.
Ritesh Arya & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4889 of 2003
Decided On : April 15, 2004
P.R. Singh, for Petitioners D.C. Sharma, for Respondents Nos. 2 and 5 Jagdish Vyas, for Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 6 Chandralekha, Dy. GA, for Respondent No. 1
Headnote:(a) Academic Matters and Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Admission on free seats – Interference by Court – In matters relating to the internal working of an educational institution (say the matter of admission) and academic matters, the Court will not interfere unless the act complained of is clearly beyond jurisdiction or contrary to the statute, rules or regulations governing the institution. (Paras 12 to 14)(b) Academic Matters and Constitution of India, Art. 14 & 226 – Bifurcation of seats on the basis of merits – 30 students admitted against free seats, secured high merits than the petitioner – Held – Petitioner have got no legal right to seek relief on the ground that free seats be allotted to them merely on the basis that the respondent coordinator appraised them that they would be allotted free seats – Not unreasonable and discriminatory.
The Courts have generally set certain limitations and self- imposed restrictions on the exercise of their discretionary power under Article 226 qua the decisions of academic bodies. The courts have consistently kept their hands off the high academic bodies unless flagrant violation of fair play based on bias or malafides is established. The High Court will be reluctant to interfere with the administrative and disciplinary matter unless it thinks that there has been a blatant deviation of any law or denial of basic human rights or violation of the principles of natural justice or glaring discrimination or bias or malafides. (Para 14)
There is no question to say that the petitioners are being discriminated on the basis that they were not given free seats. If the Autonomous Bodies like University had bifurcated that out of 60 seats, 30 seats would be treated as payment seats and 30 seats would be treated as free seats and admission against 30 free seats would be given on the basis of merit, such bifurcation based on merit cannot be regarded or termed as illegal or irrational or unreasonable and discriminatory. The classification and distinction made by the respondents is just, reasonable and fair and it does not violate provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Para 23)
(2). The case of the petitioners as put forward by them in this writ petition is as follows:-
The Jai Narain Vyas University published an advertisement (Annex.1) whereby all concerned were informed that it was going to conduct the Rajasthan Master of Computer Application Admission Test (for short ``RMCAAT) on 29.06.2003 and the petitioners being eligible for the admission in MCA applied within the stipulated time in the prescribed form, which was provided by the office of the respondent No. 2 Coordinator of JNV University. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 Coordinator issued admission cards to all the petitioners whereby they were allotted role numbers. A copy of the admission card issued to the petitioner No. 1 Ritesh Arya is marked as Annex.2.
The further case of the petitioners is that thereafter, they appeared in the written examinations and they were declared pass and therefore, they were called upon by the respondent No. 2 Coordinator for counseling and a copy of the letter dated 8.07.2003 calling the petitioner No. 1 Ritesh Arya for counseling is marked as Annex.3.
The further case of the petitioners is that through letter Annex.3, the petitioner No. 1 was apprised that while coming for counseling, he was required to bring two demand drafts of Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 16,000/- and it was further clarified that the fee in private institution would be Rs. 34,000/- plus caution money whereas for Government institution, fee would be Rs. 18,000/- plus caution money and it was further clarified that in case he gets admission in a Government Institution, without self- sufficiency category, the demand draft of Rs. 16,000/- would be returned back at the same time.
The further case of the petitioners is that thereafter, they all appeared before the respondent No. 2 Coordinator for counselling alongwith requisite drafts and after counselling, they all were provided provisional admission in the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University (for short ``MLS University) and a draft of Rs. 18,000/- was received by the office of the respondent No. 2 Coordinator. A copy of the receipt showing that a draft of Rs. 18,000/- was received by the office of the respondent No. 2 Coordinator from the petitioner No. 1 is marked as Annex.4.
The further case of the petitioners is that thereafter, all the petitioners reported to the respondent No. 3 MLS University and they were provided with the MCA Students Information Sheet, which was required to be filled-in up by them and they were required to join before 4th of August, 2003.
However, according to the petitioners, before they could report to the respondent No. 3 MLS University on 4.08.2003, a telegraphic message was received by them whereby they were informed that they need not to report on 4th of August, 2003 and they were directed to contact the respondent No. 2 Coordinator. A copy of the telegraphic message received by the petitioner No. 1 is marked as Annex.5.
The further case of the petitioners is that in compliance of the telegraphic message received by them, they appeared before the respondent No. 2 Coordinator, who informed them that they were allotted seats in the MLS University (respondent No. 3) on the basis of directives received from the Government.
The further case of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 2 Coordinator further informed them that all the 60 seats allotted
