AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Bhansali, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of orders dated 23.08.2014 (Annexures-9 and 10) and a direction to the respondent University to give 5% quota of supernumerary reservation to the wards of the petitioners in accordance with the order dated 16.08.2014 (Annexure-3) and, in accordance thereof, the wards of the petitioners may not be disturbed from their studies of their respective courses.
The petitioners are employees of Agriculture University, Jodhpur; the petitioners'' wards applied for Joint Entrance Test - 2014 (''JET'') conducted by Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner (''SKRAU'') for different courses and cleared the same; in the first Academic Council Meeting of the University held on 06.08.2014 a resolution was passed approving 5% reservation in under graduate admission for children of employees of the University and it was resolved to approve 5% reservation for admission in B.Sc. (Ag) in the constituted colleges of the University for the wards of the employees; the reservation would be in addition to the sanctioned intake capacity and the admission shall be based on the merit of JET; pursuant to the resolution dated 06.08.2014, an office order dated 16.08.2014 was issued by the Director Education of the University indicating that in accordance with the resolution dated 06.08.2014 approved by the Academic Council and subsequent approval from Vice Chancellor, providing reservation of 5% quota in admission of B.Sc. (Ag.) for children of the employees of the University in the constituent Colleges of the University.
Based on the office order dated 16.08.2014, vide circular dated 19.08.2014 the Dean and Faculty Chairman, College of Agriculture sought application from eligible candidates and the last date of receiving application was fixed at 21.08.2014.
It is claimed that the wards of the petitioners applied in pursuance of the Circular dated 19.08.2014 and on 21.08.2014 itself they were admitted provisionally in B.Sc. (Ag.) Part-I in Academic Session 2014-15 and colleges were allotted to them; the students were asked to deposit requisite fees on the same day itself and were issued provisional registration slip.
It is stated that in other universities/colleges similar quota is available for University employees and the reservation is supernumerary reservation, which does not affect any right of other candidates.
However, vide order dated 23.08.2014, issued by the Director Education of the University, the order dated 16.08.2014 providing reservation was ordered to be kept in abeyance till further orders; whereafter, the Dean and Faculty Chairman, College of Agriculture also issued an order dated 23.08.2014, whereby, the Circular dated 19.08.2014 was kept in abeyance.
Aggrieved against the said action, the present writ petition has been filed claiming, inter alia, that the wards of the petitioners are still studying with the respective colleges.
A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein, it is contended that the controversy involved in the matter has been settled by this Court in the case of Seema Jasuja v. Rajasthan Agricultural University & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 599/1993 decided on 25.05.1993 and that the petition suffers from suppression of material facts, inasmuch as, the fact that order dated 20.06.2014 of SKRAU has been kept in abeyance has not been disclosed. The respondents have placed the order passed in the case of Seema Jasuja (supra) and the order dated 20.06.2014 on record; the wards of the petitioners were never enrolled in the University as they were provided provisional admission on 21.08.2014 and when the University became aware about the judgment in the case of Seema Jasuja (supra) from its parent University and its order dated 20.06.2014, which was received via fax on 22.08.2014, immediately without loosing any time, the provisional admissions were cancelled on 23.08.2014 itself and the wards of the petitioners have neither been enrolled with the University nor they have attended any classes; it is further indicated that examination process has already started and examination forms of the petitioners'' wards have not been filled; it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that having once resolved in the Academic Council for grant of reservation and the petitioners'' wards having been admitted in the course, it was not open for the respondent University to keep the entire process in abeyance; the students have been left in lurch; it is further submitted that the judgment in the case of Seema Jasuja (supra) does not apply to the present case, inasmuch as, in the case of Seema Jasuja (supra) the reservation as such was provided, however, in the present case, supernumerary reservation has been provided, which distinguishes the case; it is submitted that the other Universities have also provided for similar reservation and, therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the University in the first place while providing for reservation was incorrect and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners; it was submitted that no right has accrued to the petitioners, inasmuch as, the wards were granted admission on 21.08.2014 provisionally and on 23.08.2014 itself the same was revoked and, therefore, there is no question of any prejudice having been caused to the petitioners; the petitioners cannot claim any right for the said reservation; as soon as the University became aware of the judgment of this Court from its parent University, without any further loss of time, the reservation was kept in abeyance; it is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
A bare look at the resolution dated 06.08.2014 passed by the Academic Council of the University indicates that it provided for 5% reservation for the wards of employees and indicated that the same was in addition to the sanctioned intake capacity; whereafter, the Director Education of the University issued the office order on 16.08.2014 and the Dean and Faculty Chairman issued the Circular on 19.08.2014 calling for the applications and the last date for receiving applications was fixed as 21.08.2014 upto 04:00 PM and whereafter it appears that in a very swift action on 21.08.2014 itself the wards of the petitioners were "admitted provisionally" in B.Sc. (Ag.) for academic session 2014-15 and Colleges were allotted to them and they were asked to deposit the fees on the same day i.e. 21.08.2014; whereafter, the petitioners'' wards were registered provisionally on the same day i.e. 21.08.2014; however on the next date when the respondent University received a fax message from its parent University i.e. SKRAU, who by its order dated 20.06.2014 had kept in abeyance a similar reservation based on order in the case of Seema Jasuja (supra) and whereafter immediately on 23.08.2014 the Director Education of the University by his office order directed for keeping the office order dated 16.08.2014 in abeyance till further orders and the swiftness, with which, the provisional admissions were granted, with equally swift action by notification dated 23.08.2014, the Dean and Faculty Chairman issued notification that the students admitted provisionally in B.Sc. (Ag.) in academic session 2014-15 was kept in abeyance till further orders, which virtually amounts to revocation of provisional admission.
This Court in the case of Seema Jasuja (supra) while dealing with a similar nature resolution providing for reservation to the wards of in service employees and which resolution was not implemented, this Court held as under:--
"I have considered the rival submission of the learned counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that this kind of resolution is unwarranted and is not inconsonance with the object of PMT/PVT examinations. The PMT/PVT examinations are held at the State level and the candidates who are successful therein are admitted to the MBBS course and rest of the candidates according to availability of seats are admitted to this course. Therefore, this is a Rajasthan level examination and one University cannot keep reservation in this selection by reserving 2% and 3% seats for the wards of their non-teaching and teaching staff of its employees. There is no rationale for providing any such type of reservation for the wards of the employees when there is a State level examination. However, the respondent University did not implement this resolution. But so far as this case is concerned, I am of the opinion that this kind of reservation cannot be sustained and the respondent University has already decided not to implement the resolution. Therefore, no direction can be given to the respondent University to implement this resolution."
While coming to the said conclusion the judgment in the case of Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das & Ors. : (1992) 3 SCC 543 was noticed.
The law laid down by this Court in the case of Seema Jasuja (supra) squarely applies to the present case and, therefore, it cannot be said that the University was not justified in immediately reviewing its decision to implement the resolution of the Academic Council and within 48 hours of granting provisional admission putting the same in abeyance/revoking the same.
The distinction sought to be made by learned counsel that as reservation was in addition to the sanctioned intake capacity, the judgment in the case of Seema Jasuja (supra) was not applicable is baseless as in the case of Osiris Das (supra) Hon''ble Supreme Court dealt with similar reservation and did not approve the same.
The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners that the other institutions have also granted such reservation, the same by itself cannot make the action of providing such reservation in teeth of the judgment of this Court and Hon''ble Supreme Court as valid; the petitioners cannot claim any right based on the resolution passed by the Academic Council as the office order, in pursuance to which the reservation was provided has already been ordered to be kept in abeyance; there is no basis for petitioners to claim that their wards have studied pursuant to the admission and mere grant of provisional admission and the same having been revoked within a period of two days, the petitioners cannot even claim any kind of estoppel against the University as it cannot be said that they have changed their position.
In view of the above discussion, there is substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. The stay application is also dismissed. No order as to costs.