Shruti Gandharla vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Ramachandra Menon, CJ

Denial of admission to the course of B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) for the academic session 2020-2021 under the category of ""dependents of naxal

affected persons"" and also on ""merit"" by the 2nd Respondent/University, is under challenge in this writ petition, besides challenging the constitutional

validity of Rule 7.9 read with Form-7 of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalya Ke Snatak Pathyakramo Mein Pravesh Hetu Niyam, 2020 (for short

'the Rules, 2020') dealing with the extent of reservation under the category of dependents of naxal affected persons.

The pleadings are opposed by the 2nd Respondent/University both on the question of facts as well as in law.

We heard Shri M.P.S Bhatia, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Shri Shashank Thakur, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

Respondent/University as well as Shri Sudeep Agrawal, the learned Deputy Advocate General representing the 1st Respondent/State.

With regard to the factual matrix, it is noted that the Petitioner is an aspirant to get admission to the course in question and on completion of the '+2'

level examination, she participated in the process of selection/admission. In fact, admission to the B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) was being done on the

basis of a test known as Pre-Agriculture Test (PAT) held by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (for short, 'the Board'). But in view of

the Covid-19 pandemic situation, the Board decided not to hold examination under which circumstance, a policy decision was taken to give admission

on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the core subjects namely Chemistry, Physics and Maths/Biology in the 12th/Higher Secondary

Examinations. As per Rule 7.9 of the Rules, 2020, it was stipulated that reservation was available to the dependent sons/daughters of the naxal

affected persons. According to the Petitioner, her grandfather by name G. Mallaram, who was a Government servant and was working as a

Headmaster in a Government School, was seriously injured on 12.04.2014 in a bomb blast while he was returning to Beejapur after completing the

polling duty as the Presiding Officer at the Polling Center No. 62. The Bus in which he was travelling alongwith 24-25 persons attached with the

election duty, was attacked by certain Maoist/Naxalites who blasted the Bus using explosives. This led to death of all the other passengers except the

grandfather of the Petitioner, who was the fortunate survivor, however with serious injuries. The Petitioner being the granddaughter of a naxal

affected person, applied for B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) for the academic session 2020-2021 in the category of 'dependents of the naxal affected

persons' for which 24 seats are available. When the result was declared by the Respondent/University, only 04 seats were filled up in the above

category and 20 seats were lying vacant. The Petitioner put forth a claim both under the reserved quota for the naxal affected persons as well as on

merits by way of a representation preferred before the University. On filing WP(C) No. 2717 of 2020, it was disposed of by a learned Judge of this

Court as per Annexure P/6 judgment dated 06.11.2020 with a direction to the 2nd Respondent/University to pass appropriate orders on the

representation with regard to the claim of the Petitioner on merit as well as in respect of the reserved category of dependents of naxal affected

persons. Pursuant to the said verdict, the representation was considered by the 2nd Respondent/University who rejected the same as per Annexure

P/2 order dated 11.11.2020 on both counts; which made the Petitioner to approach this Court, also challenging the constitutional validity of Annexure

P/1 Rules and Annexure P/2 Order.

When the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 03.12.2020, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

Petitioner had secured a total of 242 marks out of 360; which is equivalent to 67.22%. But in Annexure P/2 order passed by the 2nd

Respondent/University, it was mentioned that the Petitioner had obtained only 56.11% marks in the core subjects, whereas the last candidate admitted

in the open quota was having 73.33%. Referring to Annexure P/3 merit list, the learned counsel pointed out that the person by name Barkha Anmol

Das belongs to open category (shown at Sl. No. 10586) could score only 62.67% marks in the core subjects and stands on a lower pedestal than the

Petitioner; despite which she has been included as a candidate under the merit quota. This led to the order passed by this Court on that date directing

the 2nd Respondent/University to clarify the position, simultaneously directing to keep one seat in the merit quota vacant till the matter is finalised by

this Court.

In the return dated 07.12.2020, filed on behalf of the n2d Respondent/University, it is conceded that the percentage of

marks bagged by the Petitioner in the core subjects as given in Annexure P/2 is an arithmetical mistake and that she has actually scored 67.22% as

pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. But because of this calculation mistake, the Petitioner has not suffered any loss or prejudice as

stated in paragraph 9 of the return, pointing out that the last female candidate who was granted admission in the open female category has secured

70% marks, as borne by Annexure R/2-1 cut off report dated 05.12.2020. In paragraph 10 of the return, it is pointed out that the student by name

Barkha Anmol Das having registration/roll No. 10586 referred to by the Petitioner has not been given admission to the course in question, as she has

not been alloted any seat; having secured only 62.67% marks, the cut off percentage in the open female category being 70%. Copy of the relevant

pages of the report of merit based allotment has been annexed as Annexure R-2/2. It is also pointed out that Annexure P/3 produced by the Petitioner

is only the 'overall merit list' prepared on 07.10.2020 for counselling purposes and it was prepared after the scrutiny of the application forms which is

not the admission list. This being the position, rejection of the candidature in the merit quota is correct and proper and no interference is warranted.

With regard to the validity of the Rules, 2020, it is pointed out that Annexure P/1 Rules have been enacted by the State Legislature and Rule 7.9

provides for reservation of seats in the undergraduate courses in the Government Colleges run by the University for the 'dependent sons and

daughters' of the persons deceased in naxal violence, for which a certificate issued by the Collector/Superintendent of Police in Form 7 is to be

furnished. It is pointed out that the Petitioner does not come within the purview of the said category for the reason that she is not the dependent

daughter of the person affected by naxal violence but the 'granddaughter' of an 'injured' in a naxal attack. It is also pointed out that the said clause has

been incorporated with a definite purpose to provide reservation in the seats only to the sons and daughters of the persons deceased in naxal violence

and never to extend the same to all the dependents or the relatives of the persons affected in naxal violence. It is asserted that the classification is

reasonable and there is no arbitrariness. It is further pointed out that by virtue of the settled position of law, the validity of any enactment/Rules can be

challenged only on limited grounds such as legislative incompetence or if the same is violative of the fundamental rights, whereas the Petitioner has not

raised any valid ground for laying a challenge as to the constitutional validity of Rule 7.9 of the Rules, 2020.

After hearing both the sides and on going through the materials on record, we are quite satisfied with the submissions made from the part of the 2nd

Respondent/University to the effect that the last candidate who was admitted in the open female category had obtained 70% marks; below which no

admission has been given in that segment. Admittedly, since the Petitioner had scored only 242 marks out of 360 in the core subjects, which is

equivalent to 67.22%, she is not entitled for admission in the 'merit quota' and as such, rejection of the claim under this head vide Annexure P/2 does

not call for any interference.

With regard to the challenge raised against the Rules, 2020, Shri Bhatia, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Rules were framed

by the State with a definite objective for providing a helping hand to the 'family' of the persons who have been affected in naxal violence. There is no

dispute to the fact that the grandfather of the Petitioner was seriously injured in a naxal attack when he was returning after the polling duty as a

Presiding Officer. The Bus in which he was returning was blasted off causing death of all other passengers, leaving the grandfather of the Petitioner

as the sole survivor with serious wounds. Since the purpose is to fight against the naxalism and to secure the well being of the general public, there is

no rhyme or reason to draw any distinction between the ""persons deceased"" and the ""persons injured"" in a naxal attack, to give benefit to the former

and to deny the same to the latter. The learned counsel submits that the benefit, in fact is to be given to the 'family' and as such, there is no rationale in

strictly confining it to the sons or daughters; instead of taking it to the next levels as well in the family of the person affected because of the naxal

attacks.

There may be some logic behind the submission at the first look, but on a closure scrutiny, it is seen that the Rules have been framed not to gift or

complement any person affected in a naxal attack; but to provide better education opportunities to the dependent sons or daughters who lost their

parent/s because of the naxal attack. The living conditions of a student who lost his parent/s in a naxal attack is entirely different from the condition of

a student who happens to be the son or daughter of a person 'injured' in a naxal attack. But here again, it may depend upon the ""degree of

injury/disability"" resulted and the case of the person who has been virtually incapacitated or lying paraplegic or having lost the earning capacity may be

equally actionable as in the case of a person who lost his life in a naxal attack. But this is for the law makers to deal with, as a matter of policy. It is

for such authority to consider whether the extent of reservation could be provided on the basis of 'preference' such as, firstly to the dependent sons or

daughters of the deceased; secondly to the dependent sons or daughters of the 'totally incapacitated' persons; thirdly to the dependent sons and

daughters of such others having suffered disablement to such other levels etc.; lest the seats earmarked in this segment should be wasted. It is not

correct or proper for this Court to assume the power to stipulate the norms in this regard.

The above observation however does not help the Petitioner in the instant case, as admittedly, she is not the dependent daughter of the 'person

injured' in naxal attack, but is the ""granddaughter of the person injured"". To what extent the benefit of reservation shall be provided, is again a matter

of policy to be decided by the law makers. The purpose of framing the Rules was to see that higher education was never to remain as a forbidden

field to the less fortunate children of the deceased persons who lost their lives in a naxal attack and further to provide a 'level playing field' as well, by

reserving certain number of seats. The Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Rules framed by the 2nd Respondent/University is beyond the

legislative competence or that it is violative of any of the fundamental rights, guaranteed under the Constitution. No arbitrariness or perversity is made

out. As the matter stands so, the challenge against the validity of the Rules also fails.

In the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the claim put forth by the Petitioner for getting admission to the course i.e. B.Sc. Agriculture

(Hons.) is not liable to be entertained and it has been rightly rejected by the 2nd Respondent/University, which calls for no interference. The writ

petition fails. It is dismissed accordingly.