SCA/874720/2008 17 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8747 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9623 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH =================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=================================================
PARTH
KEYUR PARIKH BEING A MINOR THROUGH HIS FATHER – Petitioner(s)
Versus
SMT
NHL MUNICIPAL MEDICAL COLLEGE & 1 – Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DC DAVE for Petitioner in SCA No.8747 of 2008 and MR ASIM PANDYA for
HL PATEL ADVOCATES for Petitioner in SCA No.9623 of 2008.
MR KB
TRIVEDI AG with MR ABHISHEK MEHTA for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for
Respondent(s) : 1,
MR K B TRIVEDI ADVOCATE GENERAL with MS
SANGEETA VISHEN AGP for Respondent(s) :
2,
=================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH
Date
: 22/09/2008
COMMON CAV JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH )
The
petitioners herein, two in number, seeking admission to the NRI seats
in respondent No.1 NHL Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad have
raised questions about interpretation as well as constitutional
validity of the following definition of NRI seats in Section 2(i) of
the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions
(Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act ) :-
Non-Resident
Indian seats means fifteen per cent seats reserved
for children or wards or the dependents for the education purpose, of
the Non-Resident Indian, to whom admission is to be given in the
professional educational colleges or institutions;
(emphasis
supplied)
2. The
thrust of the petitioners’ contention is that the Legislature
intended to give first preference to NRI students or children of
NRIs, second preference to wards of NRIs and thereafter, if
available, the remaining seats are to be given to dependents of NRIs
for educational purpose. It is contended in the alternative that if
this interpretation is not accepted, the above definition, in so far
as it includes dependents of NRIs for education purpose is
unconstitutional.
3. Before
narrating the facts or enumerating the contentions, it would also be
necessary to quote the provisions of Rule 7(C) of the Gujarat
Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation
of Admission and Payment of Fees) Rules 2008 (hereinafter referred to
as the Rules ) :-
7C. Non-Resident
Indian Seats:-
(1) The
College or Institution shall issue advertisement in two English and
two Gujarati leading newspapers inviting applications with details of
the fees to be paid, eligibility criteria and number of seats
available in Non-Resident Indian seats.
(2) Candidates
shall provide necessary documentary evidence of proof showing
Non-Resident Indian Status of his own or parents or guardian of the
wards or the person of whom he is dependent (for the education
purpose);
(3) Candidates
passing qualifying examination from abroad, shall have to produce
equivalence certificate from the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education
Board, Gandhinagar/Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi.
(4) The
Non-Resident Indian seats to be filled in by the management of
the respective Professional Medical Educational College or
Institution shall be on the basis of inter-se merit list of the
students, who have applied, to be admitted against the Non-Resident
Indian seats;
[emphasis
supplied]
4. The
case of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8747 of 2008
Parth Keyur Parikh is that he is a national and citizen of United
States of America (USA), and that he was born in the USA. The
petitioner appeared at the 12th Standard Examination in
Science stream conducted by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education Board for the academic year 2007-2008. The
petitioner obtained 81.66% marks in the subjects of Physics,
Chemistry and Biology theory papers. The petitioner submitted an
application to the respondent College for admission to the First
M.B.B.S Course in Non-Resident Indian seats for the academic year
2008-2009.
5. The
case of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 9623 of 2008
Nishi Nikhil Patel is that she is a Non Resident Indian holding a
green card of USA, that her parents are also NRIs holding green cards
of USA and that the petitioner passed her qualifying examination from
USA with 85.66% marks.
6. In
the first petition which came to be filed on 30.6.2008, on the basis
of the petitioner’s apprehension that the authorities are not going
to accept his interpretation of the Rules to give first preference to
genuine NRI students or the children of NRI students, the
petitioner prayed for interim relief against finalisation of the
admission list. The learned Single Judge granted the ex-parte
ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent college from
finalising the admission list. After hearing the learned counsel for
the parties on the question of interim relief, this Court vacated the
ex-parte injunction by order dated 10.7.2008, which was challenged
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition was
disposed of with a request to this Court for taking up the petition
for early final hearing. Both these petitions have accordingly been
heard. Since they raise common questions of law, the petitions are
being disposed of by this common judgment.
Petitioners’
Contentions
7. Mr
Dhaval Dave and Mr Asim Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioners
have submitted that there cannot be any reservation for Non-resident
Indian students, except in accordance with the principles laid down
by the Apex Court in paragraph 131 of the judgment in P.A. Inamdar
and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2005) 6 SCC 537.
It is submitted that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered only
children or wards of NRIs as eligible for NRI seats, others cannot be
considered eligible for NRI seats. It is also submitted that if at
all students depending on NRIs for educational purpose are to be
considered for NRI seats, such NRI – sponsored students can be
considered only after giving first preference to NRI students and to
children and wards of NRIs.
The
learned counsels have further submitted that as per the decision of
the Apex Court in P.A. Inamdar case (supra), there can be quota for
Non Resident Indian students for two valid reasons (i) to enable
the people of Indian origin who have migrated abroad to bring back
their children to their own country for giving them education and
also to inculcate the Indian culture and (ii) to help the
institutions to generate funds. It is therefore, submitted that not
giving preference to Non Resident Indian students like the
petitioners will run counter to the principles laid down in the
aforesaid judgment.
8. It
is submitted by Mr Pandya for the petitioner in Special Civil
Application No.9623 of 2008 that the provisions of Section 2(i) of
the Act completely annihilate the very concept of NRI. It means that
a person bringing higher fees in recognized foreign currency whether
he had his moorings in foreign country or not will be regarded as NRI
which is violative of the semantics of the language. It is ex-facie
contrary to the intention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed in
PA Inamdar case.
It
is also submitted that the disjunctive or in the definition
provides for preferential treatment to the preceding category
vis-a-vis the succeeding category.
9. Strong
reliance is placed upon the judgment dated 24.7.2007 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No.10097 of 2007 (Sohrab Arora
vs. State of Punjab) in support of the contention that admissions to
NRI seats can only be given to NRIs who are themselves students or
for NRIs whose children or wards are students and that even if the
NRI sponsors are relatives of the students seeking admission, they
cannot claim admissions to the NRI seats. Reliance is also placed on
the decision dated 17.9.2007 of the Apex Court in Shikha Aggarwal vs
State of Punjab arising from a decision of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in another petition.
10. Reliance
is also placed upon the following decisions in support of their
contention that the Court may read down the provisions in order to
save the statutory provisions from being struck down :-
1. AIR
2000 SC 114 (Para 14)
2. AIR
1989 SC 558 (Para 11)
3. AIR
1980 SC 1042 (Para 111)
4. AIR
2003 SC 4278 (para 35)
Submissions
on behalf of Respondents
11. On
the other hand, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General for the
State of Gujarat and the respondent – College submitted that the
definition of `Non Resident Indian seats’ does not give any
preference to NRI students or to children or wards of NRIs, and that
students who are dependent on NRIs for educational purpose are also
equally eligible for NRI seats. It is submitted that the legislature
has not made any micro classification amongst applicants for NRI
seats and, therefore, names of all students eligible for admission to
NRI seats have to be arranged in the order of merit, as required by
Rule 7(C)(4) of the Rules.
12. The
learned Advocate General further submitted that the observations in
para 131 of the judgment in PA Inamdar’s case were to operate till
the competent Legislature enacted a legislation on the subject. It is
submitted that the State Legislature deriving powers from Articles
245 and 246 read with Entry 25 in the Concurrent List of the 7th
Schedule has enacted the Gujarat Professional Medical Educational
Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of
Fees) Act, 2007. Hence the constitutional validity of the definition
of NRI seats cannot be challenged on the basis of the observations
made by the Apex Court in a situation where there was no such
legislation. It is submitted that what parameters should be laid down
while defining NRI seats is a matter of legislative policy and such
policy cannot be condemned as unconstitutional merely on the ground
that the definition provided in the enactment appears to go beyond
the observations made by the Apex Court prior to enactment of such
legislation. The State Legislature derives its law making power from
the provisions of the Constitution and not from the observations
made in a judicial decision.
13. Without
prejudice to the above submission, the learned Advocate General has
drawn our attention to the order dated 13.11.2006 of the Apex Court
in I.A Nos. 9 to 12 in Civil Appeal No. 4480 of 2006 (Ruchin Bharat
Patel Vs. Parents’ Association) wherein the Apex Court gave following
directions:-
1) The
students be admitted as NRIs in NRI quota as against 15% : At least
one of the parents of such students should be an NRI and shall
ordinarily be residing abroad as an NRI;
2) The
person who sponsors the student for admission should be a first
degree relation of the student and should be ordinarily residing
abroad as an NRI;
3) If
the student has no parents or near relatives or taken as a ward by
some other nearest relative such students also may be considered for
admission provided the guardian has bonafide treated the student as a
ward and such guardian shall file an affidavit indicating the
interest shown in the affairs of the student and also his
relationship with the student and such person also should be an NRI,
and ordinarily residing abroad.
It
is therefore, submitted that the definition of Non Resident Indian
seats does not go beyond the parameters laid down by the Apex Court
in the above decision.
14. The
learned Advocate General has relied upon the following decisions in
support of the submission that the provisions of a statute cannot be
read down unless the Court first comes to the conclusion that the
provisions would be unconstitutional, if not read down.
1980
(3) SCC 625 (Para 55)
2006
(6) SCC 522 (Paras 7, 8 and 10)
2002
(1) SCC 741 (Paras 6 & 7)
1999
(5) SCC 138 (Para 9)
15. The
learned Advocate General has further submitted that the respondent
College granted admissions to all the 23 NRI seats out of total 150
seats in respondent No. 1 – College. Admissions to the NRI seats
were given on the basis of the merit list of the applicants eligible
for NRI seats. 141 eligible students had applied for 23 NRI seats
under the respondent College. The student at Serial No. 23 of the
said admission list secured 89.66 per cent marks at the qualifying
examination. However, the petitioners in these petitions have
secured only 81.66% and 85.66% marks respectively. It is,
therefore, submitted that the petitioners are much lower down in the
merit list. Thus the definition of NRI seats has subserved the merit
principle.
16. The
learned Advocate General has further submitted that –
(i) the respondent
medical college has 150 seats in the First MBBS course, 75% of the
said seats are earmarked as Government seats. Out of the remaining
seats, 15% seats are earmarked as NRI seats and the balance 10% seats
are earmarked as management seats. The fees for the 75% Government
seats and 10% management seats are the same i.e. Rs.2.15 lakhs per
annum per student and for the 15% NRI seats the fees are 15000 US $
per annum. It is stated all the 23 students were admitted to the NRI
seats after this Court vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction on
10.7.2008 and each of them has paid 15000 US $. It is stated that
the 23 students satisfy the eligibility criteria as provided in
Section 2(i) of the Act. They are NRI students themselves or children
or wards of NRIs or are dependents of NRIs for educational purpose.
(ii) in the State of
Gujarat there are four private unaided medical colleges including
respondent No.1- college and the total intake of these four private
unaided college is 450 in the first MBBS course. 15% thereof i.e. 68
seats are earmarked for NRIs. There were 600 applications for 68
seats and admissions have been granted to these NRI seats on the
basis of inter-se merit of the eligible applicants in the concerned
College. Similarly, there are seven private unaided dental colleges
with a total intake of 530 out of which 80 seats are earmarked for
NRIs and the said seats have also been filled in by operating the
statutory provisions.
It is submitted that
the affected NRI students are not joined as party – respondents and
any interference by this Court at this stage would cause serious
prejudice to such students who will not be able to secure admission
to any other course, in case their admissions were to be cancelled at
this stage.
17. In
rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted
that since the petitioners are challenging constitutional validity
of a statutory provision, if the petitioners succeed in their
challenge, this Court would give the necessary declaration and the
consequential reliefs. It is submitted that the petitions cannot be
dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the affected
students are not joined as party respondents. In support of the said
submission, strong reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex
Court in AIR 2007 SC 1503 (para 25), AIR 1974 SC 1755 (Para 20) and
AIR 1983 SC 769 (Para 36).
Discussion
18. We
have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. As far as
the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is concerned, we are unable to accept their contention
that the Legislature has made mini-classification amongst the
students seeking admissions to NRI seats. Section 2(i) of the Act
defines NRI seats as seats reserved for children or wards or
dependents for the education purpose of the Non-Resident Indian.
There is nothing in the Act or the Rules to indicate that the
Legislature or the Rule making authority has given any higher
preference to students who are themselves NRIs or to children or
wards of NRIs. The disjunctive or only indicates alternatives
and not any preference. It is, therefore, not possible to read the
provisions of Section 2(i) of the Act in the manner urged on behalf
of the petitioners.
19. Coming
to the constitutional validity of the above definition, the
constitutional validity of a legislative provision can be challenged
either on the ground of lack of legislative competence of the
concerned Legislature or violation of any provision of the
Constitution including the provisions contained in Part III of the
Constitution. We find considerable substance in the submission made
by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the State of Gujarat and
the respondent college that the source of the enactment is
Articles 245 and 246 of the Constitution read with Entry 25 in the
Concurrent list in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution,
which reads as under :-
25. Education,
including technical education, medical education and universities
subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I;
vocational and technical training of labour.
There
is no dispute about the fact that Entries 63 to 66 of List -I have
no relevance to the present controversy.
Since
the State Legislature is admittedly competent to make a legislation
on the subject of admissions to medical colleges and there is no
Central legislation on the same subject, there is no question of lack
of legislative competence or repugnancy.
20. The
learned counsel for the petitioners would, however, urge that the
definition of NRI seats is arbitrary and violative of the
petitioners’ fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution
because the Apex Court held in PA Inamdar case who may be considered
eligible for admission to NRI seats. Since strong reliance has been
placed on the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 131 of
the judgment in PA Inamdar’s case, the same are quoted verbatim :-
Here
itself we are inclined to deal with the question as to seats
allocated for Non-Resident Indians ( NRI for short) or NRI
seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant
admissions to a certain number of students which such quota by
charging a higher amount of fee. In fact, the term ‘NRI’ in relation
to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases
after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get
admissions under this category nor their parents are NRIs. In
effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students
but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the
course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such
seats should be made available as the money brought by such
students admitted against NRI quota enables the educational
institutions to strengthen their level of education and also to
enlarge their educational activities. It was also pointed out
that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries,
have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as
they not only get education but also get reunited with the Indian
cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money
which they would be spending elsewhere on education of their children
should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of
such seats, not exceeding 15%, in our opinion, may be made available
to NRIs depending on the discretion of the management subject to
two conditions. First such seats should be utilised bonafide by NRIs
only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota,
merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in
whatever form collected from such NRIs, should be utilised for
benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the
society, whom, on well-defined criteria, the educational institution
may admit on subsidised payment of their fee. To prevent
misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to NRI
quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed.
So long as the State does not do it, it will be for the Committees
constituted pursuant to the direction in Islamic Academy (Islamic
Academy of Education vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697) to
regulate.
[emphasis
supplied by us]
21. The
underlined observations clearly indicate that the Apex Court was
really concerned about less meritorious students getting admissions
into medical colleges and such other institutions of higher learning
merely because they could afford to bring more money. An analysis of
the above observations would show that the following factors were
considered relevant by the Apex Court regarding allocation of seats
for Non- Resident Indians :-
(i) The money brought
by students seeking admission to NRI seats enables the educational
institutions to strengthen their level of education and also to
enlarge their educational activities.
(ii) The number of
such seats in NRI quota shouldnot exceed 15%.
(iii) NRI seats should
be utilised bonafide by NRIs only and for their children or wards.
(iv) Within the NRI
quota, merit should not be given a complete go-by.
(v) The amount of
money, in whatever form collected from NRIs, should be utilised for
benefiting students such as from economically weaker sections of the
society, whom the education institution may admit on subsidised
payment of fee.
22. Upon
a further analysis it appears that what the Legislature has done
while defining NRI seats is to give greater weightage to the merit
factor. Hence, enlargement of eligibility for NRI seats by
including the dependents of NRIs for education purpose has not
weakened but strengthened the basic premise in PA Inamdar case that
less meritorious students should not get admission merely because
they can afford to bring more money. As the facts of the instant case
clearly demonstrate, the marks obtained by the 23 students admitted
to NRI seats in the respondent- college range from 92.33% to 89.66%
at the qualifying examination. If the definition of NRI seats in
Section 2(i) were to be struck down as unconstitutional in so far as
it includes dependents for the education purpose of NRIs, the
consequence would be that the petitioners with 81.66% and 85.66%
respectively would secure admission and more meritorious candidates
dependent on NRIs for education purpose will be left out. It is not
that the NRI students or children or wards of NRIs are kept out of
the definition of NRI seats or the admission list. A perusal of the
admission list of students admitted to the NRI seats in respondent
No.1 college clearly shows that out of 23 students, 7 students
passed their qualifying examination from countries outside India and
the remaining students passed their qualifying examination in India
including NRI students or children/wards of NRIs who did their
schooling in India.
23. When
a student having done schooling in India, whose parents or guardians
are residing abroad, is eligible for admission to an NRI seat, there
is no question of his being reunited with the Indian culture because
he is already a part of the Indian culture while studying in a school
in India. No grievance can, therefore, be made against inclusion of
the third category of students who are dependents on NRIs for
education purpose, merely on the ground that such dependents have
done their schooling in India. The petitioner in Special Civil
Application No.8747 of 2008 himself has passed the qualifying exam
conducted by the Gujarat Board.
24. It
is certainly for the Legislature to consider what weightage or
priority should be accorded to the factors which are already
considered as relevant by the Apex Court. On an analysis of the
relevant statutory provisions, it appears that the State Legislature
and the Rule making authority has arranged the relevant factors in
the following order :-
(i) Substantially
higher fees are determined by the Fees Regulation Committee for NRI
seats i.e. 15% seats out of the total intake in the concerned private
unaided college. This enables such institution to generate funds to
strengthen their level of education and also to enlarge their
educational activities which would have otherwise required the
institution to charge higher fees from the students admitted to the
remaining 85% seats in the concerned institution.
(ii) Merit is the sole
criterion for granting admissions to NRI seats and, therefore, no
mini classification is made amongst the applicants eligible for
admission to NRI seats.
(iii) Enlarging the
definition of persons eligible for NRI seats enlarges the number of
students and merit being the only criterion for admissions from out
of such eligible candidates, the Legislature has given higher
weightage to merit rather than giving preference to students whose
parents or guardians are residing abroad.
(iv) Just as children
or wards of NRIs, having studied in schools in India, are eligible
for admission to NRI seats, there would be no justification for
keeping out students who have studied in schools in India and are
dependents on NRIs for the purpose of higher education which is
becoming very expensive. Children or wards of NRIs are presumed to be
dependents on NRIs for financing the expenses of higher education.
25. It
is for the Legislature to decide in its wisdom as to which class/es
of candidates should be made eligible for admission to NRI seats. So
long as the classification made by the Legislature is founded on an
intelligible differentia and the same has rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved by the statute, the legislative
provision cannot be faulted with. The legislative object is to
permit the private unaided institutions to generate more funds by
taking higher fees from students whose higher education is being
financed by NRIs provided the students are children of NRIs or wards
of NRIs or are dependents of NRIs for education purpose. Therefore,
only students who have some rational connection with the NRIs are
considered eligible. In case of children and wards of NRIs, there
would always be a presumption that they are dependents of NRIs for
education purpose. In case of others, where the students are able to
show that they are dependents of NRIs for education purpose, they are
considered as eligible. Thus dependence on NRIs for education
purpose is a common running thread amongst all the categories of
students who are considered by the Legislature as eligible for
admission to NRI seats. We are, therefore, not in a position to
accept the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners that
legislative provision including in the definition dependents of NRIs
for education purpose has no rational nexus with the object sought to
be achieved.
26. As
per the settled legal position, what weightage or priority should be
accorded by the Legislature to the different factors which are
relevant for making a legislation is entirely a matter of policy and
the Court cannot direct the Legislature to rearrange such priorities.
Striking down the definition contained in Section 2(i) in so far as
it includes dependents for the education purpose of the
Non-Resident Indian would amount to rearranging the priorities and
giving less weightage to merit. Apart from this being impermissible
in principle, it would also run counter to the basic premise in PA
Inamdar case as discussed in paras 20 to 22 hereinabove.
27. As
regards the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sohrab
Arora’s case (CWP No.10097 of 2007 decided on 24.7.2007), the Punjab
Government had issued notification dated 21.3.2007 for regulating
admissions to postgraduate medical courses. NRI seats reserved in
private colleges were divided into the following categories in order
of preference :-
Category I : NRIs who
originally belonged to the State of Punjab,
Category II : NRIs
who originally belonged to an Indian State other than Punjab.
Category III : Third
preference will be given to those Indian candidates who are sponsored
by NRI and sponsorship letter is attached with the application.
Category IV : Fourth
preference will be given to those Indian candidates who are ready to
pay fee in Indian currency equivalent to US $ as prescribed in para
27 above.
One
of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners before the
High Court was that categories III and IV above were in violation of
the judgment of the Apex Court in PA Inamdar’s case particularly para
131 in SCC (para 128 in AIR). It appears that during pendency of the
petition, categories III and IV were deleted by the Government of
Punjab and the learned counsel appearing for the concerned private
college made a grievance against deletion of category III. The High
Court did not accept the contention of the private college against
deletion of category III. Since deletion of the category III made the
petition infructuous, the petition was disposed of as infructuous.
Hence the observations made by the High Court while disposing of the
petition as infructuous cannot be cited as a precedent. Even
otherwise we express our inability to concur with the observations
made in the said judgment, because it proceeds on the premise that
the source of the rule making power was the judgment in PA Inamdar
case. It bears repetition that the Apex Court itself made it clear
in PA Inamdar case that the arrangement provided therein was till the
competent legislature made a legislation on the subject.
28. As
regards the decision dated 17.9.2007 of the Apex Court arising from
the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana Court in a cognate matter, the
said decision merely held that deletion of Category III cannot apply
when this category was available at the time of counselling.
29. In
the view that we have taken on merits of the controversy, it is not
necessary to decide the question about the effect of not joining the
affected students as party respondents in the petitions.
29. In
view of the above discussion, we see no merit in the petitions. The
petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged in each
petition with no order as to costs.
[K.S.
RADHAKRISHNAN, C.J.]
[M.S.
SHAH, J.]
zakir/-