Chakshu Sharma vs H.P. University and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The petitioner approached this Court with certain grievances regarding selection for M. Phil Course for the academic session 2009-2010 conducted by the H.P. University. The relevant clause which requires interpretation is 7(F)10 which reads as follows:

7(F)10 Number of admission in each department:

The number of seats in each department shall vary between 10 to 15 as decided by the Departmental Council. However, the number of seats for M. Phil. through ICDEOL shall be as determined by the Academic Council / Executive Council from time to time. 15% and 7.5% of seats shall be reserved for bonafide Himachali Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates respectively who have passed the qualifying examination from Himachal Pradesh University or H.P. Krishi Vishvavidyalaya or Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry or from any other Universities established by law in India which is equivalent to the qualifying examination of H.P. University.

Thus, 77.5% seats shall be filled as under:

(i) 25% of the seats for admission shall be open for all the candidates irrespective of institutions from where they have passed their qualifying examination;

(ii) 75% of the seats shall be filled out of the candidates who have passed their qualifying examination from Himachal Pradesh University or H.P. Krishi Vishvavidyalaya or Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry. (However, in case any of the 75% seats meant for the graduates/post- graduates students of this University in M. Phil. in ICDEOL remain vacant, the same shall be filled up from amongst the students from outside H.P. and vice versa arrangement be made in case of vacant seats under the 25% quota).

It is contention of the petitioner that so long as there is reservation for the candidates who are taking their qualifying decree from Himachal Pradesh University or H.P. Krishi Vishvavidyalaya or Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, that should be filled up first and then alone the open merit selection for the 25% should be resorted to. It is further contended that as otherwise the candidates, who are taking their qualifying degree from other Universities, will have to compete against the candidates who are taking their qualifying degree from the institutions in Himachal Pradesh, both in open merit as well as after the reservation too. The third contention is that whenever reservation is prescribed, unless mode of selection is prescribed in the regulation concerned, reservation should be filled up first. The contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be appreciated. At the very outset, it has to noted that procedure regulating the selection, as such, is not under challenge. Be that as it may, even otherwise, the prescribed procedure will indicate that 25% of the seats for admission has to be considered first since it is specifically mentioned therein that candidates are free to make their claim against 25%, irrespective of the institutions from where they have passed their qualifying examination; whereas 75% is reserved only to those who have taken their degree from any of the institutions in Himachal Pradesh. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would lead to a situation where the students, who have taken their qualifying degree from the institutions in Himachal Pradesh, will not get an opportunity to compete with, otherwise meritorious candidates, who have taken their degree from the institutions outside Himachal Pradesh. That is not the intention of the University, as noted in the Hand book.

According to us, that cannot be the intention either. The Himachalis are given an opportunity to first contest for 25% of the 77.5% seats irrespective of the institutions from where they have qualified. Thereafter 77.5% are reserved exclusively for those candidates who have taken their degree from any of the three institutions in Himachal Pradesh. That alone would serve a logical purpose for which the University of Himachal Pradesh has made such a reservation and the contrary, would only lead to an illogical conclusion and would be unreasonable too, if not discriminatory. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.