Skip to content


Usha Rani Vs. Maharshi Daya, Nand University Rohtak and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 4852 of 1983
Judge
Reported inAIR1984P& H297
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 12 and 16(4); Maharashi Dayanand University Act
AppellantUsha Rani
RespondentMaharshi Daya, Nand University Rohtak and anr.
Cases ReferredGauri Shanker Verma v. The State
Excerpt:
.....further appeal shall lie. even otherwise, the word judgment as defined under section 2(9) means a statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. thus the contention that against an order passed by a single judge in an appeal filed under section 104 c.p.c., a further appeal lies to a division bench cannot be accepted. the newly incorporated section 100a in clear and specific terms prohibits further appeal against the decree and judgment or order of a single judge to a division bench notwithstanding anything contained in the letters patent. the letters patent which provides for further appeal to a division bench remains intact, but the right to prefer a further appeal is taken away even in respect of the matters arising under the special enactments or other instruments..........backward classes. all of them were aspirants to seek admission in the m. b. b. s. course in the medical college. rohtak affiliated to the maharshi dayanand university. the university had in its prospectus for the academic year 1983-84 invited applications for admission to the medical/ dental entrance examination from prospective candidates by 20th june, 1983. the examination was to commence on 5th and 6th july, 1983 at rohtak. the number of seats, as given out there is were 115 in a11. out of which two were reserved for the members of the backward classes. the petitioners applied for being considered against the reserved category of backward classes. in the entrance examination, they did not fare well and were thus unable to secure the first and second positions. those positions went.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The widening concept of 'State' for the purposes of Part-III of the Constitution is a Blaring phenomenon having emerged on the Indian policy. Art, 12 of the Constitution providing the inclusive definition of the word 'State', amongst others, puts all local or other authorities within the territory of India, and all local or other authorities under the control of the Government of India, within the concept of the 'State'. Situations can arise in which one authority as the 'State' may come in competition with another authority as the 'State' in its real to provide reservations in services and educational institutions in favour of Particular classes of weaker sections of the society causing serious damage to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution. to Indian citizens. How that conflict is to be resolved or situation avoided is left perhaps to the good sense of those authorities. They have perhaps to work under the doctrine of mutual respect avoiding a collision, always keeping the wheels of the 'State' well oiled and fm good gear. The present is a case of that kind which stands emerged in these five' civil writ petitions (Nos. 4852, 500'J, 5084. 5085 and 5086 of 19831 which she be disposed of by a single order.

2. Each petitioner in the respective cases is a member of the Backward Classes. All of them were aspirants to seek admission in the M. B. B. S. Course in the Medical College. Rohtak affiliated to the Maharshi Dayanand University. The University had in its prospectus for the academic year 1983-84 invited applications for admission to the medical/ dental entrance examination from prospective candidates by 20th June, 1983. The examination was to commence on 5th and 6th July, 1983 at Rohtak. The number of seats, as given out there is were 115 in a11. out of which two were reserved for the members of the backward classes. The petitioners applied for being considered against the reserved category of backward classes. In the entrance examination, they did not fare well and were thus unable to secure the first and second positions. Those positions Went to other candidates who are not parties to these petitions. Then all the petitioners approached in October. 1983 this Court by way of these writ petitions challenging basically the change effected in the prospectus issued by the University for the academic year 1983-84 resulting in reduction of seats in the Medical Collage from 150 to 115 and the reservation for backward classes from 10% to 2%.

3. As is the agreed case of the par ties, the Government of Haryana vide instructions, Annexure P. 1. issued on 7th July, 1981 by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department. had conveyed its decision that 10% of seats in educational/technical/professional institutes controlled by the Government be reserved for the members of the Backward Classes and that these instructions were meant for strict compliance. While these instructions were in vogue, the University in its prospectus under reference reserved only 2% seats for. the members of the Backward Classes. On that score, the lament of this petitioners was that the prospectus was in violation of the instructions, Annexure P. 1. of the Government and that the University had no right to flout those and rather was under an obligation to obey them. Furthermore, grouse had been made on the reduction of seats inasmuch as vide letter, Annexure P. 3. the, Medical Council of India had performed the University in September, 1981 to raise the strength of the students in the Medical-College to 160 as the Government had sanctioned another Rs 400 lacs far the development of the institution, and it was expected that the same would be expended in about two years time. On this score. of was lamented that by reduction of seats to 115 the University had marred the chances of the petitioners from being taken as medical students. Art. 14 of the Constitution has been invoked be the petition to contend that both the steps of the University, which was a 'State' Within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution, as arbitrary as if tended to provide a different reservation in the Medical College as compared to other professional.and technical instructions in the State, for backward classes.

4. Returns have been filed by the Registrar of the University and the Principal of the Medical College, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. It is claimed that the reduction as reservation and on seats was not arbitrary and that since the University could only provide facilities for 115 admissions annually. such number of seats had accordingly to be put in the said prospectus. Annexure R. 2 with the return of the principal of the Medical College was a letter from the Medical Council of India signifying that fact, since the from-referred to sum of Rs. 400 lacs could not be expended in the institution. Besides that it asserted that the Vice-Chancellor of the University vide letter of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana dated 19-6-I983, Annexure R. 1/1, was informed that the Government had decided that the admissions during the year 1983 will be according to the reservations announced in the prospectus by the University. It was suggested that the Government and the University had no difference on that score.

5. The Government of Haryana is the 'State'. The Maharshi Dayanand University too is the 'State.' This Court has held so in Gauri Shanker Verma v. The State, AIR 1982 Punj arid Har 100. The Medical College, Rohtak undisputedly is controlled by the Government of Haryana, but is not under the control of the Government of India. Whether it is a 'State' or not need not be determined here. Here the Government of Haryana as the 'State' and the University as the 'State' are claimed to have made reservations in Backward Classes at different percentages for the seats in the Medical College. Rohtak. Whose decision should prevail and which one shall rule over the other is one question. The second one is whether the Government vide Annexure R. I(1) could validly accede to the prospectus for the year 1883-84 as announced by the University.

6. It is well settled that Article 16(4) of the Constitution does not confer any right to a citizen to have created reservations in favour of any backward does at citizens. Correspondingly. there is no constitutional duty Imposed on the Government to make reservations for Scheduled Castes/Tribes and Backward Classes. The matter stands crystallised by now that Art. 16(4) is an enabling provision and confers a discretionary power on the State to make a reservation Whether there should be a reservation in favour of the members of the Scheduled Caste and Backward Class at any given time and what should be its percentage is a question,of policy, and depends on a variety of factors to which the Government or the authorities are supposedly alive to. Their view is dependent inter alia on as several assessment and survey of requirements of the residents of Particular territories and other categories persons for whom it is essential to vide reserved educational facilities. that deep stream of thought, the Courts seldom dive to meddle with the m and method of making the classification; to it on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis. 'Thus, no one can claim the creation of reservations as a matter of right. It follows logistically that no one can claim the maintenance thereof for all times, or given times. No one can equally resist change thereto m the mere supposition that he was better off without the change and insist on the maintenance of status quo.

7. The University was created under the Maharashi Dayanand University Act. 19 5; The Medical College, though controlled by the Government of Haryana is a College affiliated to it. It is a College admitted to the privileges of the University under the aforesaid Act. Concededly; the University would be within its right in a given set of circumstances to withdraw affiliation. Now the University has been confirmed under Sec; 5 thereof certain powers and obligated to perform certain duties which amongst others are ' ' provide instruction, including respondence and such other courses, to such persons as are not members of University as it may determine.'

'To make special arrangements for the education of women students and the students belonging to weaker sections of the society. in particular Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. as the University may consider desirable. and

'To do all such things as may be necessary incidental or conducive to the attainment of all or any of the objects of the University.

8. It is plaintiff the statutory power confirmed on the University that as 'state' it can make special arrangements for the education of students belonging to weaker sections of the society inclusive of members of the Backward Classes as the petitioners are. Such power was conferred on 'the 'University with deeming effect from 20th day' of December, 1982 vide the Maharshi Dayanand University Amendment Act, 1983 which came into force on 6th April; 1983. Thus. in the academic session 1983-84. the University as the ' 'State' had the enabling right to create reservation in favour of the Backward Classes, and it chose, that for the Medical College within its domain. there should be only two seats for the members of the Backward Classes.

9. Now the Government of Haryana generally vide instructions,. Annexure p. 1, as a 'State' having ordered creation of reservations in educational/technical/professional institutes controlled by Government at the rate of 10% for the members of the Backward Classes cannot De said to have eclipsed the statutory powers M the University under the Act afore-referred to. Those instructions were at best. Binding on the Medical College:. But here the Medical College on its part had not created any. reservations and availing the benefit of its affiliation kept itself obeyed-by the dictates of the University. The Government too vide letters, Annexure P. 1/1, wisely chose to agree with the University. Thus the 'State' in One part did not come in conflict with the 'State' in the other part. The Government as a controlling authority over the Medical College had the right to avoid a conflict in the interest of the College and its smooth relationship with the University. It is to be viewed in the back-drop that it is the Legislature which in its wisdom had created the University as an authority and thus a 'State' within. the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and had further conferred as it the power to make special arrangements for students belonging to the weaker sections of society. thereby. conferring an it the Dower to create reservations. to that situation, the strength of. the instructions of the Government of Haryana providing a. higher percentage of reservation in educational Institutions under its. control did, to my mind. lose their spread and rigour, all the more when the Government had. reed with the University in. p ding a lesser percentage of reservation to the members of the Back ward Classes !or seats in the Medical College. The suggested conflict: of jurisdiction would' then 'tie mere academic which need not be indulged in here. Thus. it is held 'that the University reserving only 2% seats for the Backward Classes and throwing' them open'. for these candidates to compete in The Medical/Dental Entrance Examination took 'a. valid step unquestionable in these proceedings.

10. The learned counsel For, the petitioners their contended about:'the reduction of the seats. He maintained that despite the Government: having not spent money as d sired by' the Medical' Council of India, nothing,'stopped the University to otherwise maintain the seats at 150' as before. I fail to see how such an argument can be maintained in these proceedings. How many students can the University cater to is dependent on its own resources: From the very nature of things, it is. not possible for the University to throw the admission open to' an infinite number of students' 811 'over the country. It 'is a matter which is dependent of the potential' of' the University.and this Court cannot interfere in such a matter

11. Lastly, the contention of the learned counsel, for the respondents with, regard to the candidature of the petitioners need just to be noticed as. according to him, none of the petitioners had qualified in the Entrance Examination. But this contention loses its validity, had, the seats. been kept at 10%.'this aspect need not engage attention at all.

12. For the view above taken. there is no merit in these petitions which fail and are hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs,

13. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //