Miss Ritika Mahajan and another vs Chaudhry Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others

This order shall dispose of four connected writ petitions (Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 10673 of 1993, 11152 of 1993, 11251 of 1993 and 11282 of 1993) as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition No. 11152 of 1993 (Miss Ritika Mahajan v. Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar).

The prayer in all these petitions is to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash weightage of 10% being given to the children/grandchildren (from paternal side only) of those residents of Haryana who own and cultivate agricultural land or of landless cultivaters as provided in para 27 of the prospectus issued by the University for the year 1993-94. Second prayer in the writ petitions is to quash reservation of 5% for the children of the employees of Ch. Charan Singh Agricultural University, Hisar.

Insofar as prayer for quashing 5% reservation for the children of employees of the University is concerned, the matter is squarely covered in favour of petitioners by recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman/ Director, Combined Entrance Examination v. Osiris Dass 1993 (4) RSJ 261. This is the consistent view of this Court as well. No further comments are, thus, required to be made and reservation of 5% for the children of employees of Ch. Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar is quashed.

The relevant paragraph 27 of the Pros'' pectus issued by the respondent-University for the year 1993-94 providing 10% weightage for children/grand-children of those residents of Haryana who own and cultivate agricultural land or of landless cultivators, runs thus:--

"27. For admission to various programmes there will be weightage for those who fulfil minimum prescribed qualification as under. Those who are eligible for reservation are also eligible for weightage for a particular category, in addition to his placing in the reserved category. All weightage will be given on total marks of qualifying examination and where admission will be made on the basis of merit of a few subjects, weightage shall be allowed on total marks of relevant subjects. A candidate claiming more than one weightage shall be allowed the highest weightage only:--

(i) Children/grand children (from paternal side only) of those residents of Haryana who own and cultivate agricultural land or of landless cultivators."

The Division Bench of this Court in recent judgment rendered in Civil Writ Petn. No. 12406 of 1991 (Manoj Kumar Kathuria v. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar on February 22, 1993 (reported in AIR 1993 P & Har 219), quashed clause 29(1) of the prospectus which envisaged that children who had studied in a village school for eight academic years and had in addition passed matriculation or middle examination, as regular students from a village school, of Haryana Board, would be entitled to weight-age of 10% of total marks of qualifying examination. While dealing with the matter, the Court proceeded to observe thus (At p. 222, para 7):--

This is too flimsy a material to sustain classification. We are, therefore, satisfied that the classification is not founded on intelligible differentia and at any rate it has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The classification is irrational and arbitrary. The reservation based on such classification is constitutionally invalid.

I am in complete and respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench and further would like to express that the present case stands on far stronger footing, it could not be disputed during the course of arguments that a person, who even though is self-cultivating the land, could be a rich landlord whose children might have throughout studied in best schools available in the country. It is a matter of common knowledge that in this part of the country the rich landlords getting themselves recorded as self-cultivators are residing in best towns and are getting their children admitted in English Public Schools of highest repute in the country. The same can also be true even with regard to landless cultivators, who, it is not disputed, include a tenant, who in a given case, might be holding considerable land under his tenancy. The matter is once again squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by an authoritative judgment in Manoj Kumar Kathuria and others Vs. Haryana Agricultural University and another, .

Mr. Aggarwal, however, places strong reliance on a Full Bench decision in Amar Singh v. Maha Rishi Dayanand University, Rohtak ILR (1980) P & H 493, suffice it to say that this judgment was considered by the Division Bench in Manoj Kumar Kathuria''s case AIR 1993 P & Har 219) (supra) and in view of the latter decision holding contrary view of the Supreme Court in Suneel Jatley and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , the same was rightly not followed by holding the same to have been impliedly overruled.

In view of what has been said above, these petitions succeed. Paragraph 27 of the Prospectus issued by the respondent-University to the extent it provides weightage of 10% to children/grand-chidren (from paternal side only), of those residents of Haryana who own and cultivate agricultural land or of landless cultivators and reservation of 5% to the children of employees of Ch! Charan Singh, Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar is quahsed. In consequence of quashing weightage/reservation as referred to above, a direction is issued to the respondent-University to consider the case of petitioners ac- cording to their merit as it would have been if there had been no reservation weightage in the manner indicated above and if they come in the zone of consideration, they shall be admitted in the course under contention. This exercise shall be done by the University within 15 days from today. It is, however, made clear that the benefit of this judgment would be given to the petitioners only and any one who might take exception to the weightage/reservation, his case would obviously be belated. Admissions already made, in view of the fact that the students have already studied for a period of more than seven months, are protected. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Copies of this judgment be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Reader of this Court.

Petitions allowed.