S.C. Agarwal, J.
1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Mohammed Refique, is seeking to challenge the admission of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, Shri Sharvan Singh and Shri Shri Gopal Singh, in the Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandary (B.V Sc. and A.H.) Course at the College of Veterinary and Animal Science, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the College) in the academic year 1979-80.
2. The College is affiliated with University of Udaipur and it admits students for the B.V. Sc. and A.H. course of the University of Udaipur. A notice prescribing the admission procedure containing rules of admission for the year 1979-80 was issued by the College. In the said rules of admission the conditions for eligibility for admission to the various courses run by the College, including the B.V. Sc. and A.H. course, were set out. For candidates seeking admission in the B.V. Sc. and A.H. Course,, it was prescribed that they should have secured a minimum of 45% overall marks in the 1st year TDC with science and Biology or B. Sc. (Agri.) Part I. In the said rules of admission it was also provided that certain seats would be reserved for students belonging to certain categories. Amongst the categories in respect of which reservation had been made was included the reservation of two seats for, the, State nominees in the B.V. Sc. & A.H. course. On 11th June, 1979 ' the State Government issued a notice whereby it declared that the nominations for the seats reserved for State nominees for the various courses in the University of Udaipur would only be made from amongst candidates belonging to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, minority community and war orphans. By the notice aforesaid applications were invited from students falling in the aforesaid categories.
3. The petitioner had passed his first year examination of the Three Years Degree course from the Dungar College, Bikaner in the year 1978 and he had secured 51% marks in optional subjects, viz., Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The petitioner possesses NCC Junior Division Air Wing certificate and by virtue of the admission procedure he was entitled to be given an advantage of 4% marks for the aforesaid certificate. The petitioner submitted an application before the State Government for being nominated for admission in the B.V. Sc. & A.H. course of the College, against the two seats which were reserved for State nominees By its communication dated 22nd August, 1979 the State Government informed the registrar of the university of Udaipur the names of the students which were being nominated by the state government for the various courses With regard to B.V Sc & A.H course the state Gopernment nominated Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. In addition the state Government recommended the names of 4 other persons, viz. sarv shri Brijraj singh, Ajitsingh Arun purohit and Anil Kumar for sympathetic consideration for admission to the said course. The State Government further recommended the names of Shri Abdul Rayum, Julifikar Ahmed and Karmat Ali for admission against the quota reserved for the minorities. The names of Devendra Singh and Gajendra Singh were recommended for the seats reserved for Ex-soldiers and the names of Girdharilal was recommended for the seat reserved for scheduled caste candidates. By another letter dated 27th August, 1979 the State Government recommended the name of the petitioner for admission to the B.V. Sc. and A.H. course for sympathetic consideration. The petitioner was however, not given admission to the B.V. Sc. and A.H. course at the College and Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were given admission to the said course. Being aggrieved by the admission of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the said course and the denial of admission to him, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
4. In the writ petition, the petitioner has submitted that the nomination of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 for admission to the B.V. Sc and AH. course is illegal and, in violation of the guide lines contained in the notice dated 11th June, 1979 issued by the State Government with regard to nomination for the seats reserved for State nominees. In the writ petition, the petitioner has also pleaded 'that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for admission is as much as he had been duly recommended by the State Government on the basis that he belongs to the minority community. In the writ petition the petitioner has also challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions with regard to reservation of two seats for State nominees contained in the admission procedure notified by college on the ground that the aforesaid reservation is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution in as much as the reservation of certain seats for State nominees does not Sub-serve the object sought to be achieved namely to get best amongst the student population for admission into professional colleges. In the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the Dean of College may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner as recommended by the State Government in its letter dated 27th August, 1979 treating him to be a person of minority community. In the alternative the petitioner has prayed that the reservation made in the admission procedure be quashed and admission of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 be set aside.
5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the University of Udaipur and the Dean, College of Veterinary and Animal Science Bikaner, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein. In the said reply it has been asserted that the notification issued by the State Government on 11th June, 1979 contains only administrative instructions and that the breach of the said administrative instructions does not confer any right which can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the said reply it has also been asserted that the classes for the B.V. Sc. and A.H. Course have started on 10th October,1979 and that all the examinations of the First semester have been held and studies for the Second Semester had started and that for promotion to the second year B.V. Sc. and A.H. course it is necessary to pass both the semester examinations. In the said reply it is also stated that the total number of seats which were available for admission for the 1st year B.V. Sc. and A.H. course was 80 and all the 80 seats have been filled up and there is no vacancy left for the 1st year B.V. Sc. and A.H. course.
6. Shri M.R. Singhvi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the nomination of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had been made in breach of the notice dated 11th June, 1979 issued by the State Government and that the admission of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to the B.V. Sc. and A.H. course on the basis of the aforesaid nomination was illegal and void. Shri Singhvi has submitted that even if it be assumed that the notice dated 11th June 1979 contains administrative instructions, it was not open to the State Government to act in disregard of the said administrative instructions and that a breach of the administrative instructions would be open to challenge on the ground that it results in violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Singhvi has placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Amerjeet Singh v. State of Punjab 1975 (1) SLR 171. Shri Singhvi has further submitted that the reservation of two seats for the State nominees in the B.V. Sc. and A.H. course is violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, in as much as there is no rational basis for making any reservation in favour of the State nominees in the matter of admission to the B.V. Sc. and A.H. course. Shri Singhvi has, therefore, submitted that the admission for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the B.V Sc. and A.H. course in the College is liable to be quashed and the matter with regard to admission for the two seats on which respondents Nos. 4 and 5 were admitted should be reconsidered.
7. Shri H.M. Parekh, the learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and the learned Dy. Government Advocate, have on the other hand submitted that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued for the enforcement of the administrative instructions contained in the notice dated 11th June, 1979. In support of the aforesaid submission they have placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Giraj Prasad Kaushik v. State of Rajasthan 1979 RLW 493. The learned Counsel have also submitted that the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in as much as there is no averment in the writ petition that as a result of the breach of the administrative instructions contained in the notice dated 11th June, 1979, the petitioner has been discriminated as against other persons similarly situate. With regard to the challenge to the validity of the provision for reservation of two seats for the State nominees contained in the rule for admission, the learned Deputy Government Advocate and Shri H.M. Parekh have submitted that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the validity of the said reservation in as much as the petitioner has not alleged that if the reservation had not been made he would have been entitled to be admitted in the general quota. The learned Dy. Government Advocate and Shri H.M. Parekh have also submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous for the reason that the petitioner was seeking admission in the First Year of the B.V. Sc. and A.H. Course commencing in 1979 and as more than one year has elapsed since the commencement of the said course, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid submission the learned Counsel have placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Girraj Prasad Kaushik v. 'State of Rajasthan (supra).
8. I am in agreement with the contention urged by the learned Counsel for 'the respondents Nos, 1 to 3 that the 'writ petition has become infructuous due to lapse of timer.
9. The petitioner' Was Seeking' admission in the First Year of the B.V, Sc. and; A.H course for the academic year 1979-80. Admissions to the said course1 were completed in the year 1979 itself and the studies commenced from 10th October 1979 More than one year has elapsed since then and during this period studies for both the semesters of the First Year Course are over and examination for the Second semester have also been held;,'The Study for the second year course is to commence now
10. , In Suresh v. Vasant : AIR1972SC1680 the Supreme Court was dealing with. a case in which admission of. a student to the M. Sc. (Agri.) Course of the Punjabrao Krishi Vidhya Peeth was challenged before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High' Court had allowed the said writ, petition and had declared the admission Of the student to be bad. The Supreme Court, while setting aside the said judgment of the High Court in appeal, has observed.
There is another serious hurdle in the way of sustaining the relief which has been granted by the High Court. The Post-Graduate course for which the admission was to be made is about to conclude and the appellant has been attending that course and has appeared mall the examinations and may be declared successful after he has completed the course and passed all the remaining examinations. None of the; resp6ndehts who was eligible for admission oh the basis of the qualifications for students not belonging to the reserved categories has been attending the course in question or appearing in the examinations. If the order of the High Court is to be carried out it will only mean that the appellant will be deprived of the entire work which he has put in during this period from the date he was admitted in 1970 whereas any eligible candidate out of the present respondent who may be held entitled to admission in accordance with the judgment, of the High Court cannot qualify for any Post-Graduate Degree unless he starts attending the course which will mean that another period of two years will have to lapse before he can get the Post-Graduate degree if he passes all the examinations etc. The High Court, while granting the relief, ought to have kept in view the injustice that would result in a matter like this and which would make the grant of the writ almost futile.
11. ln. State of Kerala v.T.P. Rashna 1979(1) SCC 572 the Supreme Court, while sustaining the claim with regard to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in the matter of admissions to the Medical College in the State of Kerala, refused to, set aside admissions of the students who had been wrongly granted admission on the basis of the impugned order. The Supreme Court has observed:
Thus the negative stroke of voiding the G.O. and granting relief to the petitioner is to throw out a number of stunents already undergoing their course and to incite unwittingly student unrest of magnitude, apart from leaving the academic algebra for admissions in a state of vacuum. One thing is certain. If the syndrome of campus chaos is to be obviated, the court should come to the assistance of the Kerala University students already admitted and Undergoing theirmedical course, who might otherwise have to be jettisoned. We, therefore, do not think it right to force into the medical colleges any Student who may be qualified for admission by virtue of our order at the expense of another who has already been admitted and is undergoing the medical course.
12. Similarly in the present ease respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have undergone the study for the B.V. Sc. and A.H. course for one year. In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, it would not be just arid appropriate to quash the admission of respondents No. 4 and 5 to the B.V. Sc. and A.H. Course.
13. Shri Singhvi has, however, submitted that a direction could be issued for creation of one more seat in the college for the petitioner in the B. V. Sc. and A.H. course. Shri Singhvi has, in support of his aforesaid submission placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana (Supra) and has pointed out that in that case the Supreme Court had given a direction for adding 30 more seats. In my opinion, the aforesaid contention urged by Mf. Singhvi cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana (supra) the Supreme Court has observed 'after all, not much time has passed since the teaching session began.' This shows that the direction which was given by the Supreme Court in that case was shortly after the commencement of the teaching sessions. In the present case the teaching sessions began on 1Oth October,' 1979 and First Years' Course in which the petitioner was seeking admission, has already been completed. It is difficult to appreciate how any direction can be given for the admission of the petitioner in the First Year of B.V. Sc. and A.H. course which commenced in 1979, after the completion of the study for First Year. The position to day is that the next course for the B.V. Sp. and A.H. degree commencing in 1980 has also started. The petitioner, did not apply for admission in the said course. The position in the present case is thus not very different from that in Girraj Prasad Kaushik v. State of' Rajasthan (supra) wherein this Court has observed:
Moreover, in the present set of circumstances, the writ petitions have become infructuous. The petitioners appeared in the PMT held for the year 1977-78 and that particular academic year is over. The next Pre-Medical Test was held for the year 1978-79. In this test, some of the petitioners did not appear and some appeared and failed. The students who appeared and passed in the examination in the academic year 1977-78 have already gone to a higher stage. The present petitioners cannot be admitted, even if the writ petitioner were to be allowed in the higher classes. The petitioners have not appeared in the competition with the present lot who appeared in the examination held for the academic year 1978-79. It is said that some of the petitioners appealed and failed. Their cases are, therefore, still worse, It appears that the present set of writ petitions have become infructuous by lapse of time. If any of these writ petitions are allowed, then too, it would be extremely difficult to enforce the direction that might be issued.
14. The aforesaid observations are fully applicable to the facts of the present case and no relief can be granted to be petitioner in the present writ petition.
15. Since I am of the opinion that the writ petition must fail on the ground that it has become infructuous, I do not consider it neressary to deal with the other contentions urged by Shri Singhvi on merits.
16. In the result the writ petition is dismissed, as, having become infructuous. But in The circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.