AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.R. Nayak, J.—During the academic year 1995-96 the petitioner sought admission to the Post Graduate Degree Course leading to M.B. A. degree. In the entrance test held by the 1st respondent the petitioner has secured 148 marks out of the total marks of 230. His grievance in this writ petition is that the petitioner is not given admission whereas the respondents 5 to 7 who have secured lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner have been given admission in the 2nd respondent-college. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in admitting the respondents 5 to 7 to the M.B. A. post graduate degree course and denying admission to him. The petitioner has also sought for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to admit him to the Postgraduate degree course of M.B.A. during the academic year 1995-96.
On service of notice the respondents 2 and 3 have filed counter.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.
In the petition it is stated by the petitioner that the first list of selected candidates for admission was notified by the 2nd respondent-principal in the month of August, 1995 and a week thereafter the2nd list was also notified in the notice board and the third list came to be notified in the first week of September, 1995. The petitioner has no grievance as regards the issuance of three lists is concerned because in those lists only those candidates having better percentage of marks than the petitioner were given admission.
In the counter filed by the respondents 2 and 3 it is stated that on the same day when the third list as displayed in the notice board of the college, two vacancies arose and another notice was displayed to that effect in the notice board and informing the concerned candidates that those vacancies would be filled up by spot selections. It is further stated in the counter that spot selections were made on 28-10-1995 and since the petitioner did not turn up for spot selections, he was not given admission whereas among those candidates who appeared for spot selections, the respondents 5 to 7 were selected and given admission. This is the only defence putforth by the respondents 2 and 3 in their counter.
The instructions issued by the Osmania University provide that the admissions for M.B.A. and M.Com. Courses will be made by spot selection for all the colleges based on merit-cum-preference. No other provision was brought to the notice of the court by the learned counsel appearing for the parties governing admission to the Postgraduate M.B.A. degree course.
In the present case, admittedly the 2nd respondent published three lists notifying the admissions of eligible candidates to the Postgraduate M.B.A. degree course. Admittedly even according to the respondents 2 and 3 on the day the third list was displayed in the notice board of the college, two vacancies arose. It is not the case of the respondents 2 and 3 that they notified the vacancies by any effective technique of publication so as to inform all the concerned about the existence of two vacancies. What is asserted is that, this fact was notified only in the notice board of the college. However, those assertions of the respondents 2 and 3 notifying the vacancies in the notice board of the college and calling upon the concerned to appear for spot selections on 28-10-1995 have been denied by the petitioner-student in the reply affidavit. Be that as it may, this controversy need not be pursued further.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find a fatal flaw in the admission procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent-principal of the college. Now it is settled position in law that admission to Postgraduate professional courses should be strictly in accordance with the rule of merit. The only exception to this rule is the protective discrimination provided under the provisions of the Constitution. The petitioner has secured 148 marks out of 230 marks in the entrance test conducted by the first respondent during the year 1995-96. The respondents 5 to 7 who are now granted admissions have admittedly secured lesser percentage of marks than the petitioner and the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 7 do belong to the same class in every respect. Therefore, even in the absence of statutory regulations governing admission, the admission authorities are required to follow only such procedure which is in consonance with the constitutional goal and requirements and if it has adopted any procedure, application of which tends to violate the constitutional principles, then such procedure should be condemned as arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable. Looking from that angle, the action of the 2nd respondent in denying admission to the petitioner and granting admissions to the respondents 5 to 7 should be held to tantamount to practice of invidious discrimination, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is entitled to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed and a writ of mandamus shall issue to the respondents 1 to 3 to offer admission to the petitioner to the postgraduate degree course leading to M.B.A. Postgraduate degree course forthwith.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.