Ganga Prasad Yadav vs Allahabad Agriculture Institute and Others

G.P. Mathur, J.—Shashank Choudhary (Respondent No. 5) in the writ petition has filed this review petition for recalling the judgment and order dated February 8, 1995 by which the writ petition was allowed with regard to second relief and the admission granted to him was cancelled. Though by the order dated January 20, 1995 notice was directed to be issued asking him to show cause why his admission in B. Tech, Agriculture Engineering Part 1 Course be not cancelled, but he did not appear at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. Therefore, we have heard the review application on merits.

The prospectus of Allahabad Agriculture Institute (hereinafter referred to as the Institute) for the academic session 1993-94 gave in detail the admission policy of the Institute. It provided that the applicants will be placed in two categories viz. (a) General Candidates ; and (b) Christian Candidates and a merit list will be prepared for each category based on the total marks scored by the candidate in the Entrance Test for the purpose of admission. It further provided that up to 50% seats in each course will be available to candidates of Christian community. It is not in dispute that the applicant Shashank Choudhary neither appeared in the Entrance Test nor he belongs to Christian Community. In the counter-affidavit which was filed by the Institute in the writ petition, it was stated that the management of the Institute had passed a resolution whereby 10% seats were reserved for wards of staff, employees, and benefactors of the Institute, in addition to the seats published in the prospectus, as promotional quota under the discretion of Allahabad Agriculture Institute Administration. The resolution further provided that the students applying in promotional quota should not appear in Entrance Test. In the judgment and order dated February 8, 1995 finally disposing of the writ petition, it was held that the aforesaid resolution of the management as well as any admission made under the promotional quota was unconstitutional and the same was accordingly struck down and the admission of the applicant Shashank Choudhary was consequently cancelled..

Shri Janardan Sahai has submitted that it is open to the Institute to adopt any policy of admission and, therefore, the resolution of the management to fill In 10% seats by such candidates who do not appear in the Entrance Test is perfectly legal. Learned Counsel has submitted that the policy of admission based upon marks secured in qualifying examination and interview was held to be valid in St. Stephen''s College etc., etc. Vs. The University of Delhi Etc., Etc., ; Shri Janardan Sahal has further submitted that the procedure adopted for admitting the applicant under the promotional quota by taking into consideration the marks secured by him in the qualifying examination and interview is in accordance with law. Shri A. B. L. Gour learned Counsel for Allahabad University has, however, submitted that the admissions made under the promotional quota are illegal and the Institute is not entitled to make any such admission.

We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel. It is not in dispute that initially it was announced by the Institute that there will be 40 seats in B. Tech. Agriculture Engineering Part I Course, out of which 50%. viz., 20 seats were reserved for Christian candidates and 20% for General candidates. The admission to the aforesaid 40 seats was made on the basis of an Entrance Test and separate merit list for Christian candidates and General candidates was prepared. However 10% of the aforesaid seats viz., 4 seats was filled in under the promotional quota and the applicant Shashank Choudhary was admitted under the aforesaid quota. The students who have been admitted under the promotional quota did not appear in the Entrance Test. The result, therefore, is that 44 students have been admitted in B. Tech. Agriculture Engineering Part I Course and out of these only 20 students were admitted on merit under the General category. Thus only 20 out of 44 seats remained available under the General category where admission was made on the basis of merit. This is less than 50% and is contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court as laid down in paragraph 102 of St. Steplien College case (supra). It is well-settled that even a minority institution receiving grant-in-aid from the Government cannot have reservation exceeding 50% of the seats which have to be filled in on the basis of merit. In Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. etc., in paragraph 170(2) it has been held as follows:

At least, 50% of the seats In every professional college shall be filled by the nominees of the Government or University, as the case may be, hereinafter referred to as "free seats". These students shall be selected on the basis of merit determined on the basis of a common entrance examination where it is held or In the absence of an entrance examination, by such criteria as may be determined by the competent authority or the appropriate authority, as the case may be. It Is, however, desirable and appropriate to have a common entrance examination for regulating admissions to these colleges/ Institutions, as Is done In the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Thus, there can be no doubt that the resolution of the management which provides for admission under the promotional quota is wholly unconstitutional and the admission granted to the applicant is Illegal and cannot be justified In law.

Shri Janardan Sahai has next submitted that the applicant Shashank Choudhary was admitted in B. Tech. Agriculture Engineering Part I Course in the academic session 93-94. in November, 1993 and he has passed Part I Examination securing first position and having studied for more than a year, the order passed by this Court canceling his admission is highly unjust on the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has also submitted that the applicant had not committed any fraud nor he had secured his admission wrongly Inasmuch as he had been admitted under a scheme, viz., promotional quota which was in existence at the relevant time and till then it had not been declared unconstitutional. It Is thus submitted that on the peculiar facts of the case, the order canceling the admission of the applicant should be set aside and he should be allowed to pursue his studies. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel has placed reliance on Punjab Engineering College Chandigarh through its Principal Vs. Sanjay Gulati and Others, . It may be noticed "that Ganga Prasad Yadav who had appeared In the Entrance Test as a General candidate and had secured 55th rank In the merit filed the writ petition on March 17, 1994 claiming two relief�s, viz. that a direction be issued to the Institute to admit htm in B. Tech. Agriculture Engineering Part 1 Course and to cancel the admission of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as they had been admitted without having appeared in the Entrance Test. The writ petition was allowed and the second relief was granted by the judgment and order dated February 8, 1995. It Is, therefore, obvious that the writ petition had been filed within four months of the admission of the applicant. Along with the writ petition, a copy of the judgment and order dated February 2, 1994 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42937 of 1993 Pramod Kumar Misra v. Allahabad Agriculture Institute has been filed as Annexure 2 wherein also the admission granted to the present Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was challenged being Illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This petition was filed on November 22, 1993. A perusal of the judgment shows that though notices were issued to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 but they avoided accepting the same on some pretext. However, as the Court directed that the Petitioner of the said case, viz. Pramod Kumar Misra, who was in the waiting list in the Entrance Test, be granted admission, the Court refrained from passing any order with regard to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6. It, therefore, shows that within a few days of the admission of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the Institute, the same was challenged by filing a writ petition and that in the earlier petition also they avoided to accept notice of the writ petition. So it is not a case where admission of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has been challenged after considerable lapse of time. It may also be noticed that the admission policy of Allahabad Agriculture Institute had been challenged in a bunch of writ petitions which gave rise to special appeal No. 546 of 1992 (Allahabad Agriculture Institute v. Amir Hussain) which was decided on May 12, 1993. It was held by a Division Bench that any kind of reservation to the candidates other than Church sponsored candidates would be discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. It was clearly laid down therein that the Institute, being a Christian minority Institute, can have reservation only to the extent of 50% of the seats and the remaining seats have to be filled in by General candidates and strictly on merit. It is, therefore, obvious that the Institute was fully aware that there can be no reservation beyond 50% of the available seats. Yet it has persisted in acting in defiance of the aforesaid judgment and in admitting students of General category not on merit but in the garb of promotional quota. The law declared by Supreme Court in St. Stephen College''s case and Unnikrishnan''s case is the law of the land and is binding upon all. A person acting contrary to the law of land cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Recently the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of passing order for regularisation of such admissions which had been wrongly secured merely on the ground that the student had studied for some period. In Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another, , similar argument was repelled and admission made one year back was set aside. Again in Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, , a wrong admission made was set aside with the following observation:

Unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to selection of candidate for admission to educational institution by adopting illegal means on the part of the authorities has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalized In courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will Jeopardize the purity of selection process itself ; engender cynical disrespect towards the Judicial process and in the last analysis embolden errant authorities and candidates Into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the court. Such instances reduce the Jurisdiction and discretion of courts into private benevolence.

Therefore, it will not be proper to allow the applicant to continue in the Institute merely on the ground that he has studied for over a year.

It may be noticed that there is no averment in the review application that the applicant is a ward of an employee, staff or benefactor of the Institute. It appears to us that admission in the garb of promotional quota was granted on extraneous considerations.

For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this review application and the same is accordingly dismissed.