Bhagat Ram vs State of Haryana

R.C. Kathuria, J.—In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider their claim for admission to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Course (hereinafter referred to as ''the Course'') against the seats reserved for Ex-servicemen.

For admission to 1020 seats in the Course in various Colleges affiliated to Kurukshetra University, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as ''the University''), applications were invited from the eligible candidates through an advertisement. 1% of the seats were reserved for E.S.M and their wards. The petitioners applied to the said Course under E.S.M category. Entrance test was held on 1.7.2000. In the result declared, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 secured 127 and 132 marks and were placed at serial Nos. 68 and 44 in the merit list, respectively. They were asked to submit their admission forms accompanied by necessary documents upto 17.8.2000, as detailed in the Handbook of Information for admission to the Course (hereinafter referred to as ''the Prospectus'') issued by the University. They were called for counselling on 3.9.2000. After the counselling, result of successful candidates for admission to the said Course was declared. Admission was denied to the petitioners because on the basis of the combined merit list of E.S.M/Wards of Ex-servicemen they were lower in merit as the last candidate who had applied for admission under the said category had obtained 138 marks. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were the only candidates claiming admission under the reserved category of Ex-servicemen and were entitled to admission out of six seats reserved for this category. Further, according to them, in terms of the Prospectus the respondents were unjustified in preparing a common list of E.S.M and wards of Ex-servicemen and granting admission to the candidates under this category on that basis.

On notice of motion to the respondents, they have contested the claim of the petitioners in the written statement Filed by them. It has been pleaded by them that 1% of the seats were reserved jointly for E.S.M. and their wards and as the last candidate admitted had obtained 138 marks, the petitioners have no claim to the reserved seat under this category. On these premises, they justified the denial of admission to the petitioners in the said Course.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the writ petition.

The controversy in this case relates to the interpretation of the eligibility criterion laid down in the Prospectus for the reserved category of E.S.M. and their wards. Therefore, it is essential to notice the relevant provisions of the Prospectus and the same read as under ;-

"H. RESERVATION OF SEATS

50% of the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes/ Orthopaedically Handicapped/Dependent of Freedom Fighters/E.S.M. and their Wards belonging to Haryana State as follows:

Scheduled Casses

: 20% (10% for Block ''A'' &0% for Block ''B'').

Backward Classes (Except Socially advanced/persons/sections (Creamy Layer) as defined by the Haryana Govt.

: 27% (16% for Block ''A'' &11% for Block ''B'')

Orthopaedically handicapped

: 1%

Dependent of Freedom fighters

: 1%

E.S.M. & their Wards

: 1%

XX XX XX XX XX

XX XX XX XX XX

Note: 1. Dependents of Freedom Fighters of Haryana are required to submit a certificate from the concerned Deputy Commissioner.

Wards of Ex-servicemen of Haryana are required to submit the certificate from the concerned Dis- trict Soldier Board.

xx xx xx xx"

The above provisions of the Prospectus leave no manner of doubt that candidates claiming admission under the said reserved category have to fulfil the requirement laid down in sub-clause (5) of Clause H, noticed above. The explanatory Note 2 of the Prospectus further states that wards of Ex.- servicemen of Haryana are required to submit the certificate from the concerned District Soldier Board. The plain language employed in the Prospectus has to be given effect in determining the rights of the parties. As under this sub-clause words ''E.S.M. & their Wards'' have been conjointly stated, the intention of the authorities by incorporating these words meant to extend the benefit of reservation not only to the candidates falling under the category of E.S.M. but also their wards. If the intention was not to include the wards of E.S.M. under this category, then there was absolutely no necessity of making a mention about the wards of E.S.M. along with E.S.M. If the interpretation put forward from the side of the petitioners to this sub- clause is accepted, that would be violating the provisions of this sub-clause of the Prospectus and thereby limiting the application of the provisions of the Prospectus only to candidates covered under the E.S.M. category. Such a construction manifestly would deny admission to the eligible candidates. It is not a case where any ambiguity is discernible from the provisions of the Prospectus. It is not uncommon that benefit of reservation is given to the wards of different categories of persons for granting admission to them in the professional and other courses. A look at Note 1 of Clause H of the Prospectus, referred to above does indicate that even for the dependents of freedom fighters of Haryana, reservations to the extent of 1% has been provided. Therefore, this is not unusual for the authorities to have provided reservation of 1% to extend the benefit to the candidates not only falling under E.M.S. category but also to the wards of E.S.M.

Even otherwise, it stands well-settled that the provisions of the Prospectus have the force of law and the candidates applying for admission to the course have to fulfil the requirements laid down therein. !t binds them as well as the University because the University cannot deviate from the provisions of the Prospectus while considering the respective merit of the candidates in determining their eligibility for admission to the Course. The petitioners were well aware that under sub-clause (5) of Clause H of me Prospectus, wards of E.S.M. were also covered in seeking reservation of 1 % along with candidates claiming reservation under E.S.M. category. Therefore they cannot challenge the action of the respondents in giving admissions to the more meritorious candidates than the petitioners under this category.

In fairness to the counsel for the petitioners, we may refer to the cases Subordinate Services Selection Board v. BIR Singh and others 1995(3) RSJ 901 : 1995(3) SCT328 (SC) and Diwan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others 1996(2) RSJ 514 relied upon by him in order to support the case of the petitioners. In Subordinate Services Selection Board''s case (supra) the question which arose for determination was that as to whether the respondents were eligible to be considered for appointment as Clerks in Class ''A'' Offices although they were not Matriculate with First Division. The respondents in that case were the dependents of Ex-servicemen. The State Government, while reserving the posts for Ex-servicemen, had prescribed qualifications for the posts of Clerk in ''A'' Class Offices. The benefit of reservation to the dependent sons and daughters of Ex-servicemen was also extended in the proceedings dated 21.3.1979. This Court, vide its judgment dated 14.7.1993, found the respondents to be eligible. The Subordinate Services Selection Board filed S.LP. against the said judgment of this Court. Taking into account the above facts and the proceedings dated 21.3.1979, it was held by the Apex Court that benefit of mere matriculation is available to the Ex-servicemen only and the dependent sons and daughters of Ex-servicemen cannot be considered to be Ex-servicemen.

In Diwan Singh''s case (supra), the controversy related to the eligibility of the dependents of Ex-servicemen and claim was put forth by the petitioners on the basis of Certificates issued by the Sainik Board. The Apex Court observed that the Certificate issued by the Sainik Board does not ipso facto become conclusive nor would it entitle the candidate to be considered as a dependent of the Ex-serviceman and in case of doubt, the Selection Board should call upon the candidate to support his claim that he is a dependent and fulfills the requirements prescribed in the guide-lines. On that basis, the appeal was allowed and a direction was given to the respondents to call upon the candidates to satisfy the relevant requirement and then fill up the unfilled reserved for Ex-servicemen.

The facts of both the above-mentioned cases have no bearing whatsoever with regard to the controversy raised before us and for that reason no assistance can be had by the petitioners from the observations made in the said cases to claim admission to the Course.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.