1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
ORDER.
Kanti Lal Meena Vs. Maharishi Dayanand
Saraswati University
& anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1253/2000 under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Date of Order: February 9th, 2010.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J.
HON'BLE MR. H.R. Panwar, J.
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari,J.
Mr. Harish Purohit for the petitioner.
Mr. R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General.
Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit for respondent.
BY THE COURT ( Per Hon'ble Mr.Tatia,J):
The substantial question of law referred to the larger
Bench is as under:-
“Whether the select list for admission or for
service, where it is required to be prepared
state-wise, can be prepared district-wise ?”
The facts in short are that the petitioner sought
admission to appear in Pre-Teachers Education Test (for
short “PTET”) in the year 1999. These tests were conducted
for the purpose of admission in various different Teachers
Training Colleges for Bachelors Degree in Education. The
petitioner was a member of Schedule Tribe and he disclosed
so in his application form and according to the petitioner,
2
admission letter was also issued to the petitioner with
specific note on the left top corner of the admission letter
mentioning that it is for member of Schedule Tribe. The
result of the PTET was declared by the respondent-
University and the petitioner was declared successful and
according to the petitioner, in the category of Schedule
Tribe. The petitioner was permitted to take admission in
Mahant Shree Raghunandan Dass Teachers Training
College, Dungarpur. However, in the said admission letter,
the petitioner was shown in the category of candidate of
Dependent of Defence Personnel. The petitioner
immediately contacted the officer-in-charge for the PTET,
1999 and the officer-in-charge of the PTET immediately
made correction in the admission letter and his category
was changed from candidate of Dependent of Defence
Personnel to candidate in the category of Schedule Tribe.
The petitioner, then took admission in the College referred
above at Dungarpur. The petitioner then deposited the fees
and he started pursuing his studies allowed by the said
College at Dungarpur. However, the petitioner and the said
college received registered letter on 22.10.1999, whereby
the officer-in-charge PTET, conveyed to the Principal of the
said College of Dungarpur that if the petitioner does not
produce the certificate of Dependent of Defence Personnel,
his admission be cancelled. The petitioner then challenged
3
the said action of the respondent by preferring S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.4467/99. In said writ petition, the petitioner was
allowed to continue the studies and, ultimately, the
respondent’s order, cancellation of admission of the
petitioner, was quashed in the petitioner’s Writ Petition
No.4467/99.
In the reply to the Writ Petition No.4467/99, it was
submitted by the respondents that the petitioner was
otherwise not eligible for admission to the B.Ed. Course as
the petitioner secured only 270 marks which was below the
cut off marks in the category of Schedule Tribe for the
District Dungarpur whereas cut off marks for admission to
B.Ed. College in the District of Dungarpur was 334. This
Court in the petitioner’s Writ Petition No.4467/99 observed
that if the petitioner is not otherwise qualified then the
respondents will be free to take action against the petitioner
on the said ground. The respondents then started
proceedings for cancellation of the admission of the
petitioner to the B.Ed. Course on the ground that in district-
wise, the merit list prepared for the admission to the course
of B.Ed., the petitioner was not eligible. Faced with this
situation, the petitioner preferred this writ petition and
stated that the merit list for the admission to the course of
B.Ed. could have been prepared only state-wise and not
4
district-wise. The petitioner’s contention is that in other
districts of the State of Rajasthan number of candidates
have been given admission in the B.Ed. Course who secured
less marks than the petitioner. Earlier the issue for
admission to the B.Ed. Course came up for consideration
before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Mahavir Prasad Jangid vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. and
other 214 connected writ petitions. The Division Bench of
this Court vide judgment dated 23.11.1987, held the
district-wise preparation of the merit list for the purpose of
grant of admission to the B.Ed. Colleges is just and legal
and is not arbitrary or ultra vires.
When the present petition came up for consideration
before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the
view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Mahavir Prasad Jangid(supra) is contrary to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the cases of Govind A.
Mahe & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors. ( JT 2000(4) SC
384), Minor p. Rajendran v. State of Madras and others
(AIR 1968 SC 1012) and Minor A. Periakaruppan v. State
of Tamil Nadu & ors. ( AIR 1971 SC 2303). In view of above
judgments, issue has been referred to the larger Bench as
stated above.
5
We considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the judgments of the Division
Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Mahavir Prasad
Jangid(supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court delivered in the case of Govind A. Mane(supra),Minor
p. Rajendran(supra) and Minor A. Periakaruppan(supra).
Govind A. Mane’s case was decided on the basis of
earlier decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in
the cases of (1) Minor p. Rajendran v. State of Madras and
others (AIR 1968 SC 1012) and (2) Minor A. Periakaruppan
v. State of Tamil Nadu & ors. ( AIR 1971 SC 2303). It will
be worthwhile to consider the judgment of the five Judges
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of
Minor P. Rajendran(supra) first. In the said case, the
Madras High Court promulgated the Rules for selection of
candidates for admission to the first year integrated
M.B.B.S. Course. There was large rush of the candidates for
admission to the Medical Colleges in the State of Madras,
while the seats were limited. In view of this situation, the
State of Madras framed the Rules for admission to the
candidates wherein provision was made for district-wise
allocation of seats. The Hon’ble Apex Court, while
considering this issue, has held as under:-
6
“The question whether districtwise
allocation is violative of Article 14 will
depend on what is the object to be
achieved in the matter of admission to
medical colleges. Considering the fact that
there is a larger number of candidates than
seats available, selection has got to be
made. The object of selection can only be
to secure the best possible material for
admission to colleges subject to the
provision for socially and educationally
backward classes. Further whether
selection is from the socially and
educationally backward classes or from the
general pool, the object of selection must
be to secure the best possible talent from
the two sources. If that is the object, it
must necessarily follow that that object
would be defeated if seats are allocated
district by district. It cannot be and has not
been denied that the object of selection is
to secure the best possible talent from the
two sources so that the country may have
the best possible doctors. If that is the
object, the argument on behalf of the
petitioners/appellant is that that object
cannot possibly be served by allocating
seats districtwise. It is true that Article 14
does not forbid classification, but the
classification has to be justified on the basis
of the nexus between the nexus between
the classification and the object to be
achieved, even assuming that territorial
classification may be a reasonable
7
classification. The fact however that the
classification by itself is reasonable is not
enough to support it unless there is nexus
between the classification and the object to
be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be
achieved in a case of the kind with which
we are concerned is to get the best talent
for admission to professional colleges, the
allocation of seats districtwise has no
reasonable relation with the object to be
achieved. If anything, such allocation will
result in many cases in the object being
destroyed, and if that is so, the
classification, even if reasonable, would
result in discrimination, inasmuch as better
qualified candidates from one district may
be rejected while less qualified candidates
from other districts may be admitted from
either of the two sources.” (emphasis
supplied)
In the case of Minor A. Periakarupan(supra), Hon’ble
the Apex Court, while considering the identical issue,
observed that “Before a classification can be justified, it
must be based on an objective criteria and further it must
have reasonable nexus with the object intended to be
achieved. The object intended to be achieved in the present
case is to select the best candidates for being admitted to
the Medical Colleges.” The above two decisions were
followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Govind A
8
Mane’s case(surpa).
The facts of this case, already mentioned in earlier
part of the judgment, clearly show that the petitioner
denied admission to the B.Ed. Course because of only
reason that in district-wise merit list he was not eligible for
admission to B.Ed. Course, whereas the other candidates
were given admission in other districts who secured less
marks than the petitioner. The respondents submitted reply
and relied upon admission rules 4 and 5, which provides to
prepare the merit list district-wise and that too after taking
into consideration the district from where the candidate
passed the Secondary School Examination. According to the
respondents, the petitioner since passed the Secondary
School Examination from Dungarpur, therefore, his merit
list was prepared at Dungarpur. From the reply filed by the
State, we do not find any reason on the basis of which it
has been decided to give admission to the B.Ed. Course
after preparing merit list district-wise and no reason in
support of any nexus to be achieved by providing such
criteria for admission to the course of B.Ed. The B.Ed.
Course is available to the candidates who shall ultimately be
imparting education and shall be eligible for appointment to
the post of teacher, obviously, in the entire State of
Rajasthan, then there was no justification for giving
9
preference to those candidates who secured less marks
within the State in competitive examination for giving
admission in the B.Ed. Course providing opportunity to
become teachers in the entire State of Rajasthan. In view of
the above reasons and in view of the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred above, the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Mahavir
Prasad Jangid(supra) will not hold the field.
In view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, referred above, it is clear that the Constitution of
India does not forbid the reasonable classification but the
classification has to be justified on the basis of nexus
between the classification and the object to be achieved.
The reasonableness in classification by itself is not enough
to support the classification unless there is a nexus between
the classification and the object to be achieved. The object
to be achieved for admission to the technical course
colleges, is to select best talent and the allocation of the
seats district-wise has no reasonable relation with the
object to be achieved. So far as second part of the above
question is concerned, that refers the employment on the
basis of district-wise merit list, that issue is not involved in
the present facts of the case in any manner and, therefore,
there is no need to answer this issue by the larger Bench.
10
The writ petition could have been sent to the Single
Bench of this Court after deciding the question referred to
the Larger Bench but since the petitioner has already
completed his studies in the B.Ed. Course by virtue of order
of this Court as an interim order, therefore, after nine years
of the petitioner’s obtaining the decree of B.Ed., this Court
finds no reason to send the matter back to the Single Bench
of this Court and it is proper to decide the writ petition
itself, as the law point has been decided in favour of the
petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents seeking
cancellation of the admission of the petitioner to B.Ed.
Course cannot be justified and, therefore, it is held that the
petitioner was entitled to pursue his course of the B.Ed.
irrespective of the fact that in his District, he secured less
marks than the last candidate to whom admission was given
by preparing the district-wise merit list.
The question is answered, as above and the writ
petition of the petitioner is allowed in the terms referred
above.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (H.R. PANWAR),J. ( PRAKASH TATIA), J.
mlt.