Skip to content


Shyamsunder Vs. University of Jodhpur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ No. 1850/83
Judge
Reported in1983WLN(UC)176
AppellantShyamsunder
RespondentUniversity of Jodhpur
Excerpt:
.....duties as and when they are required to do so. consequently, i am unable to hold that admission to engineering college was refused to the petitioner on the basis of any illegal or discriminatory instruction of the university.;writ dismissed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age..........77% . in this pre-engineering written test held for the purpose of granting admission in the 4 engineering colleges of the state of rajasthan,the petitioner obtained 936 out of 1200 marks which upon calculation, comes to more than 80% . in this manner, the petitioner secured 55th position in the order of merit. besides, the model prepared by the petitioner for exhibition in the science festival was exhibited in the district level science fair of the years 1979, 1980 and 1981. the petitioner got several other certificates in the literary and cultural programmes of the school also which speak of his merit.3. the petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 5.7.1983. and when he appeared before the board of interview on 16.7.83. he was in formed that as he does not fulfill the.....
Judgment:

K.D. Sharma, C.J.

1. By way of ten writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Shyam Sunder Khandelwal has challenged para 7 of the Instructions for the Guidance of Candidates intending to appear at the Pre-Enginsering Test 1988, as published in the Information Booklet for Pre-Engineeriug Test (P.E.T., 1982 and prayed that may by struck down and declared to be invalid and the University of Jodhpur may be directed to call the petitioner for interview and grant him admission according to his merit in the speciality he is entitled to.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner claims a brilliant career in as much as he be secured 1st Division having obtained 86% marks with distinction in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the Secondary examination. Apart from this, he secured /4 marks out of 100 in English, 61 marks out of 100 in Hindi and 36 each in General Science and Social Studies out of 50. In the Higher Secondary School Examination 1982 he secured 329 marks out of 400 and was thus placed in 1st Division with distinction in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. In the 1st Year T.D.C. examination, the petitioner secured 150 Marks in mathematics and very high marks in Physics and Chemistry, the precentage of the marks obtained is about 77% . In this Pre-Engineering written test held for the purpose of granting admission in the 4 Engineering Colleges of the State of Rajasthan,the petitioner obtained 936 out of 1200 marks which upon calculation, comes to more than 80% . In this manner, the petitioner secured 55th position in the order of merit. Besides, the model prepared by the petitioner for exhibition in the Science Festival was exhibited in the District Level Science fair of the years 1979, 1980 and 1981. The petitioner got several other certificates in the literary and cultural programmes of the school also which speak of his merit.

3. The petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 5.7.1983. and when he appeared before the Board of Interview on 16.7.83. he was in formed that as he does not fulfill the requirements of height and weight as specified in para 7 of the Instructions for the Guidance of Candidates intending to appear at the pre-Engineerig test, 1983, hereinafter referred to as the Instructions, he cannot be interviewed and the question of admitting him to the Engineering College does not arise. The petitioner's grievance, therefore, is that a particular height and weight has no role to play in the career of an Engineer, because an Engineer is not ordinarily called upon to undertake any physical labour in the discharge of his duties, which are of supervisory nature. The petitioner further alleged that the provisions contained in Para 7 of the Instructions are discriminatory, whereas seats have been reserved for physically handicapped persons and the petitioner is not considered to be physically handicapped, is deprived of his right to be considered for admission to the Engineering College. It was further urged that a meritorious person like the petitioner is deprived of his right to be considered for admission whereas persons of lesser merit than the petitioner will get admission merely because the nature has favoured them by bestowing upon them particular height and weight. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the provisions contained in Para 7 of the instructions are illegal and liable to be struck down. In support of his writ petition, the petitioner's father put in his affidavit and produced some documents showing the petitioner's merits.

4. A show cause notice was given to the respondent by this Court on 18.7.83. on behalf of the respondent University. Mr. H.M Parekh, appeared in this court and filed a reply to the show cause notice, where in it was submitted that the candidates going in for the professional courses such as Engineering course must be healthy having good physique because their duties are arduous and they have to work on machines in workshops and factories etc if they are Mehanical, Electrical or Electronic Engineers and have to perform outdoor duties in Civil and Mining Engineering. All this work has to be done also during the course of studies and so criterion regarding their health has been laid down in para 7 of the Instructions and there is no question of any discrimination as all students who are selected are required to be medically fit and to satisfy the standards laid down in para 7 of the Instructions. It was further urged on behalf of the University that almost similar criterion for medical fitness has been laid nown in Joint Enterance examination for anmission to engineering course in various Inslitutions of Technology of Bombay, Kanpur, Kharagpur, Madras and Delhi and the Institute of Technology of Benaras Hindu University. According to the submission of the respondent, the petitioner is specially subnormal having his height as 1.35 Meters and weight as 33 Kgs. although his age is about 18 years and, therfore. he is medically unfit and not entitled to admission to the Engineering course. In support of she reply to the show cause notice, Mr. D.S. Bhandari, Reader in Engineering put in his own affidavit and filed relevant extracts from the Booklet entitled Information and Instructions to Candidates Joint Entrance Examination, 1983. marked Ex.R.1.

5. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. Marudhar Mridual, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. H.M. Parekh, appearing on behalf of the University. Upon perusal of the record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this writ petiton is not worth admission and is liable to be summarily dismissed. The reason is that the matter of admission of students to Engineering College is entirely in the discretion of the authorities who are in charge of their admission and it is not for the High Court to lay down additional rules for admission. In my opinion, matters of admission should be left to the discretion of the authorities who are charged with the responsibility of managing them. In the instant case, it cannnot be said that the petitioner was refused admission to the Engineering College in an arbitrary manner, or on fanciful grounds. The petitioner was Hot found eligible for admission to the Egineering College on the ground of having his height as 1.35 Meters and weight as 33 Kgs. only. Para 7 of the instructions lays down certain medical standards for the candidates who are called for interview for admission to Engineering College. The standards are that the height of the candidate should not be less than 1.5. meters if they arc males and not less than 1.4 meters if they are females. Besides they must possess 40 Kgs. of weight approximately. There are certain standards laid down for chest measurement, heart and lung, vision and hearing which are not mentioned here as they are not relevant to this case. The petitioner cannot be heard to say that the medical standards laid down in Para 7 of the Instructions are discriminatory because these standards are laid down for all the candidates called for interview for admission to Engineering College. It is not a case where different medical standards are laid down for different candidates. I do not subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a particular height and weight has no role to play in the career of an Engineer and that the Engineer is required to discharge his duties in the office only and his duties are of supervisory nature. Candidates going for professional courses, such as, Engineering Course have to perfom arduous duties as they have to work on machines in workshops, factories etc. if they are Mechanical, Electrical or Electronic Engineers. Even Civil and Mining Engineers have to perform out door duties. In the course of studies also they are required to perform all this work as a part of their practical training. In the 1st year of Engineering Course every candidate has to work in workshops, e.g. smithing, fitting, carpentery besides doing surveying work. Hence, the minimum weight and height of a candidate has been laid down in para 7 of the Instructions with a view to select candidates who are best suited for the job of an Engineer and are medically fit to perform the arduous duties as and when they are required to do so. Consequently, I am unable to hold that admission to Engineering College was refused to the petitioner on the basis of any illegal or discriminatory instruction of the University. The result of the above discussion is that that writ petition has no merit and is dismissed summarily.


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