ORDER
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. The petitioner is holding a Bachelor Degree in Sanskrit known as Sastri from Maharaja Sanskrit college of Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan. That degree is said to be equivalent to any basic Under-graduate degree. The petitioner wanted to join a course leading to Shiksha Shastri. The petitioner has secured 44.5% of marks in aggregate in the said degree examination. The petitioner wanted to join the course leading to award of Shiksha Shastri which is said to be a teaching degree course run by Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Tirupati, Chittoor District. Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Tirupati is a deemed University. The respondent deemed University conducted Pre-Shiksha Shastri Test on 28-5-1995 and in that test the petitioner secured rank 398. It is stated that there are 118 seats available in the respondent-college. Under the regulations 80% of the seats are earmarked for candidates belonging to traditional stream whereas 20% of seats are earmarked to the candidates belonging to modern stream.
2. The petitioner was denied admission against seats earmarked for the candidates belonging to traditional stream. The grievance of the petitioner is that certain candidates having lesser rank but belonging to the traditional stream are given admission whereas he is denied admission. Therefore he has sought for a declaration that the action of the respondent-deemed University in denying admission to the petitioner is illegal and violative of the regulations governing admission and a consequential direction to the respondent to give him admission against a seat earmarked for the candidates belonging to traditional stream.
3. On service of notice the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent deemed University has filed a detailed counter and subsequently an additional counter.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and 9 other persons whose details are given in para 7 of the additional counter-affidavit filed by the respondent do belong to the same class, namely, the traditional stream and all those nine persons have secured lesser rank than the petitioner is the entrance test conducted by the University and therefore admission of those 9 students to the course and denial of admission to the petitioner tantamounts to invidious discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and it cannot be sustained. On the other hand Sri Haranath, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent University on the basis of the regulations governing admission to the course would point out that the relaxation by 5% provided under the regulations is applicable only for the purpose of permitting a candidate to take examination and once such a candidate takes examination he should compete with the others in the matter of securing admission. Sri Haranath would also submit that after the results of the entrance test were made available to the respondent, the respondent prepared two separate lists – (i) a list of candidates who have secured 45% and more marks in the qualifying examination and (ii) those candidates who have secured less than 45% marks in the qualifying examination. Both the lists were prepared strictly in accordance with the per cent age of marks obtained by them in the entrance test. After having prepared such two lists the respondent-University proceeded to consider in the first instance, those candidates having 45% or more percentage of marks in the qualifying examination and in that process certain persons who have secured lesser rank than the petitioner but having 45 of more percentage of marks in the qualifying examination have been given admission whereas the petitioner is denied the admission. Sri Haranath would maintain that the procedure adopted by the University is in consonance with the rules and further the procedure tends to encourage the merit and it could not be termed as a retrograde step. At any rate the classification made by the University is a reasonable classification intend to achieve the object of merit.
5. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent-University, on the face of it, I find that the defence put forth by the respondent is not at all tenable. The guidelines i.e., General Guidelines governing the admission to Shiksha Shastri Course as incorporated in Rules 1 to 6 read as under:
“1. Minimum Eligibility Requirements for appearing in PSST will be:
A pass with 45% of three year Shastri /B.A. Sanskrit as main subject of any University recognised by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha
or
A pass with 45% of Acharya /M.A. Sanskrit of any University recognised by the Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, Tirupati.
Note: (a) Eligibility conditions for candidates belonging to SC/ST category will be only pass marks in the qualifying examination other stipulations however, remain same.
(b) The proof of having passed the requisite examination should accompany the application form. In case the result is awaited it must be submitted at the time of admission; otherwise the candidature of the student will be cancelled. Such candidates will be issued provisional admit cards for appearing in PSST only.
2. Age requirement:- A candidate seeking admission to Shiksha Shastri Course must be completed 20 years of age as on 1st October, 1995.
Relaxable by 5% marks subject to availability of seats, it means the candidates who got even 40% are also eligible to write the Test.)
3. Out of the 120 seats available for admission 80% will be filled by candidates coming from traditional stream and the remaining 20% by candidates of modern stream.
(c) B.A., Sanskrit as one of the main subjects and M.A. Sanskrit shall be treated as modern stream.
Modern Stream:- B.A., with Sanskrit as one of the main subjects, and M.A. Sanskrit.
Traditional stream:- Shastri, B.A. with Sanskrit as more than one main subjects and Acharya.
If sufficient number of seats are not filled in one stream candidates from the other stream may be considered for admission in those vacant seats.
4. Reservation:
Out of the total number of seats in each stream further reservation as per Government of India’s Rule will be made.
5. Competent authorities for issue certificates for reserved categories are as under:
(i) Candidates belonging to SC/ST category – District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Tehsildar/M.R.O.
(ii) Physically handicapped and blind-Chief Medical Officer of Civil Hospital (Only 40% or more disability will be countable),
(iii) Children/Widows of Armed Forces Personnel (disabled/ deceased) Secretary, Soldiers/Sailors/ Air Men’s Board.
6. Mode of Selection to Shiksha Shastri Course:
(i) Admissions to Shiksha Shastri Course will be made through written competitive entrance test called PRE-SHIKSHA SHASTRI TEST(PSST).
(ii) All candidates seeking admission in the course must apply on the prescribed application form on or before 25-4-95 5.00 p.m.
(iv) All eligible candidates will be required to appear for the written test on 28-5-1995.
(v) The Centre Superintendent will be supplied with identification forms to identify the candidates in examination hall.
(vi) Admit cards for appearing in the PSST indicating the Roll numbers and Name of the Centre will be sent to all eligible candidates by Registered post in the self-addressed envelopes meant for the purpose.
(vii) The results of PSST will be intimated by Registered post
Note:- Candidates should write His/Her address on both envelope and Rank Card clearly indicating pin code of delivery zone to avoid postal delay.
(viii) Those who are qualified in the PSST will be called for an interview on a specified date in the Vidyapeetha.
(ix) Those who are selected will be admitted into the Shiksha Shastri Course, 1995-96.”
6. As could be seen from these guidelines the minimum eligibility requirement for appearing in PSST test would be a pass with 45% of three year Sastri/B.A. Sanskrit as main subject of any University recognised by the respondent or a pass with 45% of Acharya/M.A. Sanskrit of any University recognised by the respondent deemed University. Foot note to Rule 1 provides that the percentage of marks, namely 45% prescribed in Rule 1 is relaxable by 5% of marks subject to availability of seats. Exception does not stop there. It further provides that that means, the candidates who got even 40% of marks are also eligible to write the test. Sub-rule (i) of Rule 6 of the Rules makes it very clear that admission to Shiksha Sastri course should be made through written competitive entrance test briefly called PSST. What emerges from these two provisions of Rule 1 and Rule 6(i) is that there is one prescription for appearing for the entrance test and another prescription for seeking admission to the Shiksha Shastri Course. As regards admission to Shiksha Shastri course is concerned Rule 1 and Rule 6(i) provides that admission should be done through a Pre-Shiksha Shastri Test (PSST), a written competitive entrance test. If that is so the respondent University after conducting the entrance test and obtaining the results of the entrance test should have considered the candidature of the applicants strictly in accordance with their relative performance in the entrance test. That procedure has been departed by the University. The University is quite fair in its counter in disclosing that as many as 9 candidates belonging to the same class to which the petitioner belong but having lower rank than the petitioner had been provided admission. The classification made and sought to be sustained by the respondent-University on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination is not at all relevant nor germane for the purpose of giving effect to what is contained in Rule 1 and Rule 6(i) of the Rules. When a regulation commands that admission should be based on certain criteria or considerations, then the admission authority is bound by such regulation and it cannot take into account some irrelevant and extraneous considerations to defeat legitimate rights of a candidate flowing from such regulations. If the rule making authorities wanted the respondent-University to take into account the performance of the candidates in the qualifying examination also, there was no difficulty for the rule making authority to provide for the same. In the absence of any such provisions in the rules and in the light of what is clearly stated in Rule 6(i) of the Rules it should be held that admission should be made solely on the basis of the performance of a candidate in the PSST test and not on the basis of the marks i obtained in the qualifying examination.
7. Before concluding another submission made by Sri Haranath, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University may be noticed. Sri Haranath would point out that even in the event of the respondent considering the cases of all the candidates who have passed in the PSST test solely on the basis of their performance in the said test even then the petitioner is not entitled to admission. In support of his submission Sri Haranath would point out what is stated in the additional counter-affidavit. In page 4 of the additional counter-affidavit it has given a list of 15 candidates who have secured higher ranks than the petitioner in PSST test but like the petitioner they do not have 45% or more percentage marks in the qualifying examination. In that view of the matter Sri Harnath would point out that there is no case to issue the kind of mandamus sought by the petitioner and this Court cannot issue a futile writ. This argument of the learned counsel is not acceptable to the Court. Those 15 candidates are not before the Court. As on to-day they are denied admission. If for any reason if those 15 candidates do not agitate before the Court, that fact shall not come in the way of the next candidate in the merit list seeking a legal remedy otherwise available to him.
8. In the result and for the foregoing reasons the writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus shall issue to the respondent-deemed University to admit the petitioner to Shiksha Shastri course within a period of ten days from to-day. In the facts and circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs.