Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NITIN SHARMA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Nitin Sharma And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 6404 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8723 (1 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6404 of 2006

Nitin Sharma & Others

Vs

State of U.P. & Others

~~~~

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

An advertisement was issued by P.C. Bagla (P.G.) College, Hathras calling for admission from eligible candidates to B. Ed. Degree Course under 15% management quota for the academic session of 2004-05 under Self-Finance Scheme. The petitioners applied and passed the entrance examination. There are 90 seats in the College for B. Ed. Degree Course out of which 85% seats, i.e., 76 were to be filled by the respondent-University and rest of the 15% seats, i.e., 14 were to be filled by the College on merit. Out of 208 candidates who applied for the B. Ed. Course under 15% management quota, 14 candidates including the petitioners were selected. The College vide its letter dated 9.5.2005 informed the Registrar of the respondent-University about the selection and sought approval for admission of the aforesaid 14 selected candidates, 7 belonging to General Category, 4 belonging to O.B.C. and 3 belonging to S.C./S.T. Category. Thereupon the respondent-University vide letter dated 19.7.2005 asked the Principal of the College to submit an affidavit that the 14 candidates have been selected on merit under 15% management quota.

It appears that the petitioners had not been admitted but were permitted to attend classes in the meantime like other admitted B. Ed. Students.

 

The petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant admissions to them in B. Ed. Degree Course under the 15% management quota of Self-finance Scheme in pursuance of letter/order dated 9.5.2005 and also to permit them to deposit requisite fee so that they may be treated as regular students of B. Ed. Degree Course.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon paragraph 8 of the writ petition and submits that the petitioners have been provisionally permitted to attend classes like other candidates who have been selected by the University but they are not being permitted by the College to appear in the examination. He has also relied upon the letter dated 22.8.2005 which is appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition and contends that the petitioners are entitled to appear in the examination of B. Ed. Degree Course for the academic session of 2004-05 in view of G.O. dated 5.8.2005 appended as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The aforesaid letter dated 22.8.2005 is as under:

^^Mk0 Hkhejko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk

i=kad 140

fnukad 22-08-2005

lsok esa]

izkpk;Z @ funs'kd]

leLr egkfo|ky; @ laLFkku]

¼ ch0,M0 ikB~;dze lapkfyr ½

fo"k; % 'kklu @ fo'ofo|ky; }kjk ch0,M0 2004&2005 gsrq Nk=ksa ds izos'k ds lEcU/k esaA

egksn;]

d`i;k layXu 'kklukns'k la[;k 3150 @ lRrj&2&2005&10 ¼75½ 2005 fnukad 5 vxLr] 2005 dk laKku ysus dk d"V djsa ftlds }kjk ch0,M0 ikB~;dze lapkfyr f'k{k.k laLFkkvksa esa Nk=ksa ds izos'k ds laca/k esa vkns'k fuxZr fd;s x;s gSaA

mRrj izns'k 'kklu ds 'kklukns'k ds vuqlkj] 'kklu @ fo'ofo|ky; }kjk l= 2004&2005 esa tks izos'k fd;s x;s gSa] mu Nk=ksa dk izos'k rRdky lqfuf'pr djsaA

layXud % mDrkuqlkjA                                Hkonh;

                                                  g0 vLi"V

                                                  dqylfpo**

                                                                 

It is undisputed fact that the College has not admitted the petitioners though they might have been permitted to attend classes even if the University has been directing the College to admit them. It is a matter between the petitioners and the private college. The G.O. dated 5.8.2005 aforesaid is in respect of academic session of 2005-06 and not 2004-05 in which in paragraph 3 of the G.O. reference to 50% management quota for the academic session of 2004-05 has been made.

In so far as the question of percentage of quota is concerned, the controversy has now been finally settled by the judgment dated 28.4.2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 46 of 2005 wherein it has been held: -

"The issue in these appeals primarily involves a State Government notification dated 9.9.2004 whereby 85% reservation was compulsorily made in favour of the public authorities. This meant that nominations, to the extent of 85% would have to be obeyed even by private colleges and such nominations would be forwarded from the State Universities.

Thereafter, the reference made by the Supreme Could to the larger Bench in P.A. Inamdar's case got decided. So important was the decision that on the basis thereof, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice passed an order on the 23rd of September, 2005 staying the operation of our interim orders, which made the ration fifty fifty. Clearly it is now more than arguable that even a fifty fifty ration is too high on the side of the public authorities. We are therefore immediately prepared to say that it cannot be argued that fifty fifty is too high and too much in favour of the private authorities; an even lower ration than that, a fortiori cannot be successfully argued by the State or other public authorities to be correct or that it is finally to be settled herein. We cannot have any other opinion in that regard.

Eighty five per cent being on the high side in the state of the law even then prevailing, we passed orders from time to time, somewhat of stop gap nature, allowing a 50:50 ratio, commencing from the 24th of March, 2005; a modification was ordered by us on the 12th of April, 2005.

One thing is quite clear now, that a flat 85% reservation in regard to all colleges whether private or not in favour of the State authorities cannot survive in the state of the present law. As such, the notification dated 9.9.2004 is quashed. The admissions already granted by any colleges until date will not, in any manner, be affected by the present order.

So far as the actions to be taken hereafter are concerned, parties will take steps in accordance with law and parties include even the legislative wings of the State. There will be no order as to costs.

Out of abundant caution, it is made clear that the disposal in all these matters is made on the basis of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar's case, reported at 2005 (6) Supreme Court 537 and the said judgment is to supervene and prevail in all circumstances.

The appeals are disposed of.

                                                               Sd/- A.N.Ray, C.J.

                                                                  Sd/- Ashok Bhushan, J."

                           

It also appears from Annexure R.A. 1 to the rejoinder-affidavit on which the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance that the University has permitted the petitioners to appear in the examination but the College has not admitted the petitioners as yet in the academic session of 2004-05, as such they are not entitled to appear in the examination. If there is any dispute, it is between the petitioners and the private college and no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. Suffice it to say that 50% management quota pertains to Session 2005-06 and does not pertain to admission of the petitioners in Session 2004-05.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated: 1.5.2006

Rpk/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.