JUDGMENT
Gita Mittal, J.
1. In these writ petitions three persons have claimed that though they fall under the category of “Wards of ex-servicemen”, they have been denied admission to the B.Ed Course in the reserved category where reservation has been provided to wards of ex-servicemen by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (hereinafter abbreviated as IGNOU) arrayed as party respondent in these petitions in such category on the ground that even though they may be sons of ex-service men, however, they do not fall within the definition “Ward” being employed sons who are not dependent on the ex-service men. This decision has been impugned on the ground of arbitrariness and illegality.
2. According to the petitioners, they had purchased the prospectus and application form in May, 2004 from IGNOU on payment of Rs.5,000/- seeking admission to the B.Ed course. The duly filled up applications form were submitted well within the last date of submission on 29th July, 2004. The petitioners were issued admission card/hall tickets for participating in the entrance examination which was to be conducted IGNOU at its center code 0707 at the Department of Commerce and Business at Jamia Milia Islamia. According to the petitioners they were permitted to take the entrance exam by IGNOU on 9th August, 2004 against the admit cards issued to them.
The petitioners were declared as having passed their entrance exam in the result declared on 29th September, 2004 and were taking steps to commence the course conducted by the respondent.
3. However, vide an order dated 5th October, 2004 enclosed at annexure P-1 to the petition, the regional centers were notified to the effect that the expression “wards” in the brochure implies only dependent children of the notified categories in whose favor reservation has been made. Accordingly, the regional centers were notified by the University that married/employed daughters and employed sons of ex-service men would not be eligible for the benefit of 5% reservation for admission to the B.Ed programme.
4. According to the petitioner, based on this direction from IGNOU, the University, the petitioners have not been permitted admission to the B.Ed course despite their having succeeded in the entrance examination conducted by the respondent and satisfaction of all the eligibility requirements.
5. On the other hand, according to the respondents, the reservation of 5% seats was approved by the academic council of IGNOU at its 18th meeting held on 3rd October, 1988. Approval was granted to reservation of 5% seats from the 1990th Section onwards to those programmes of IGNOU where seats were limited. It has been pointed out that reservation is not only for the “wards” of ex-service men but the reserved category has seven components. According to the respondents, the 5% seats thus reserved are also intended for “wards” of war widows as well as service personnel. Counsel for the respondents contends that the expression “wards” is applicable only to dependent children. This benefit will not be available even to a married daughter. According to the respondents, as per the dictionary, the expression “Wards” means dependent’s minor children.
Reliance has been placed on the instances cited by the respondents relating to Government of India Rules whereby only dependent children of ex-service men are eligible for the benefits of LTC and medical facilities.
6. The other limb of the submissions on behalf of the respondents is that there is no challenge to the action of the University on any allegations of mala fide or discrimination by the respondents. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this court reported at 96(2002) DLT 812 entitled Sqn. Ldr. A Choudhary v. Union of India in support of the submission that the challenge to the action of the respondents in the writ petition is wholly misconceived.
7. I have carefully heard the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both parties. The entire gamut of arguments centers around the meaning of the expression “ward”. Keeping in view the context in and purpose for which the same has been introduced into the scheme of admission, in order to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to examine the scheme for admission to the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) course conducted by IGNOU.
8. It appears that the respondent IGNOU had made available what has been termed as ‘Students Handbook And Prospectus’ which contains the application form and guide for applicants for admission to the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) course which was to commence in 2004. According to clause 2.1 of this prospectus, reservation was provided in the following terms :-
“2.1 Reservation
The university provides reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, War Widows, Wards of Ex-servicemen of military/para-military forces and physically handicapped candidates according to Government of India rules.”
It is thus apparent that reservation of seats were provided for war widows and not only wards of such widows. Against this, reservation has been provided for wards of ex-service men of military/para military forces. The categories specified have been qualified by the words “according to Government of India Rules”.
9. The entire purpose of reservation in favor of any specified category is to give effect to the mandate of the Constitutional provisions in order to ensure social justice to otherwise backward or not so progressive sections of society. The reservation contrary to such principles would suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination and could be successfully challenged on such basis. Therefore, reading such beneficial provisions which provide reservation in any other manner would be contrary to the constitutional provisions and hence stand vitiated.
10. The expression “wards” is not explained anywhere in the prospectus and therefore, has to derive its meaning given to it in common parlance.
Therefore, it is the interpretation given by “learned senior counsel on behalf of the respondents to the expression “ward” would normally have to be accepted as there would possibly be no other meaning thereof.
11. The restriction to reservation of only 5% seats from the 1990th session onwards beyond the aforestated seven categories was approved by the academic council of IGNOU at its 18th meeting as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. This reservation is not stricted only to wards of ex-service men but also to several other categories.
In the aforestated circumstances, at first blush, it would appear that the action of the respondent in its clarification of the expression “wards of ex-servicemen” cannot be impugned on any legally tenable grounds.
12. This is for another reason as well. Examination of the scheme of the reservation would show that so far as reservation for war widows is concerned, the same is not stricted to their wards alone. All these categories are entitled to reserved seats. On the other hand, it is only “wards of ex-service men” who have been held to be entitled admission to the reserved seats.
Therefore, in order to give effect to the laudable principles of state policy as well as the scheme of reservation permitted by constitutional provisions which is to facilitate upliftment of the sections of the society which needs beneficial measures as reservation, it is necessary that the reservation would normally be restricted to dependent children of ex-service men.
13. Having arrived at such conclusion that the respondents maybe justified in so interpreting the expression wards of ex-servicemen, but the matter does not end here. The court would be failing in its duty if the scheme of admissions to the B.Ed courses was not specifically noticed.
14. However matters do not end here and the issue has to be examined from another angle.
The scheme of examination has been provided under Chapter 4 of the prospectus. According to the brochure, the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) programme of IGNOU aims at developing the understanding and competencies required by practicing teachers for effective teaching-learning process at the secondary stage. It is stated that the programme also provides opportunities of sharing experiences gained by practicing teachers. The programme enables in-service teachers to select and organise learning experiences according to the requirement of learners while at the same time providing knowledge and developing in them an understanding of areas such as educational evaluation, school management, etc. Therefore the respondents have provided the following eligibility conditions for seeking admission to the Bachelor of Education (B.Ed) programme :-
“Eligibility
In-service teachers within
i) A bachelor degree or a higher degree from any recognised university.
ii) Two years’ full time teaching experience on temporary/permanent basis in a primary, secondary/higher/senior secondary school recognised by the central or a state government or a union territory. The experience certificate should be issued by the Principal, or Headmaster/Headmistress. The requisite teaching experience of two years must be completed on or before the last date of submission of application as notified in the advertisement. Those appearing in qualifying (Bachelor or a higher degree) examination can also apply. But the candidate granted provisional admission on this basis will be required to submit the proof of having passed the qualifying examination by 31st October, 2004 otherwise the provisional admission will stand cancelled.”
15. From the above, it is apparent that the eligibility conditions which have been prescribed by the respondents for the Bachelor of Education programme envisage that the candidate would be in-service teachers with two years full time teaching experience on temporary/permanent basis in schools recognised by the Central or the State Government or the Union Territory. The candidate is required to produce an experience certificate issue by the principal. The candidate is also required to produce a Bachelor Degree or a higher degree from any recognised university. Even though an exception is provided to for this qualification to the extent that a candidate would be given provisional admission on the basis that he/she was appearing in the qualifying bachelor or higher degree examination but proof of having passed such examination was to be produced by 31st October, 2004.
However irrespective of whether the candidate was undergoing the qualifying examination, the requirement of two years full-time teaching experience was mandatory and only in-service teachers are eligible for admission to the Bachelor of Education programme.
16. It is noteworthy that the reservation provided under the rules as detailed hereinabove does not contain any restriction on the reservation in terms of the course being applied for. The reservation applies uniformally to all the courses including the Bachelor of Education programme. Having regard to the eligibility conditions prescribed by the respondents themselves, it is apparent that if the interpretation of the expression “ward” as has been urged before this court and as discussed above is applied, there would be no candidate who would be less than 21 years or would be dependent upon the ex-servicemen parent who could take the benefit of the prescribed reservation. Therefore, there would be an exclusion by implication of such persons from consideration and entitlement to the reservation in the Bachelor of Education programme. In the face of no such exclusion having been notified or provided in the student handbook and prospectus, such exclusion cannot be applied by implication.
17. The respondents have placed before me a photocopy of the office note sheets to support the contention that the action of the respondents is based on due consideration. Perusal thereof shows that several regional centers of the respondent had already granted admission to wards of ex-servicemen without restricting the application of the reservation to wards who were dependents. The query from regional centers which was placed for consideration before the respondents was only with regard to whether married daughters and sons above 21 years of age of the ex-servicemen were eligible for admission to B.Ed. under the reserved quota for wards of ex-servicemen. The restrictive interpretation to the expression “wards” to show that the same is restricted to dependent children was given on the 24th September, 2004 and thereafter put up to the office chairman of the respondent no. 1. The resultant conflict in the prescribed eligibility conditions and such implementation of the reservation was also noted in the noting sheets recorded on 7th October, 2004 but the same was not considered and stands unresolved.
18. In view of the afore stated position, it is apparent that though the restriction or the reservation to dependent wards may be permissible in other disciplines. But candidates seeking admission under such reserved category deserve to be informed about such exclusion or restriction prior to the submission of application forms. However keeping in view the eligibility conditions prescribed by the respondents themselves for the Bachelor of Education programme for the pertinent Academic Session, and no exclusion to the reservation policy having been provided in the notified student handbook and prospectus, there can be no warrant for excluding the petitioners from consideration and grant of admission.
19. As per the handbook, the course envisages theory papers as well as practicals. The instructional system provided in the handbook includes a multimedia approach that is the student is provided self-instructional print media, audio/video/assignments counseling sessions and practical work in school and workshops. The programme consists of four group of courses for which a total of 48 credits are granted. Assignments have to be completed and counseling sessions are also given. Evaluation is based on continuous evaluation of periodic compulsory assignments and terminal examinations are conducted. As per the handbook, for the candidates of the academic year January, 2005, the first terminal examination would be held in December, 2005. The induction programme for the January cycle was to be held on the 8th and 9th January, 2005. Therefore there can be no legitimate objection on the ground of delay in joining the course by the petitioner. No such objection was raised before me.
20. According to the writ petitioners, the respondents had passed the order granting admission to them. The petitioners had taken all steps pursuant to the letter dated 24th September, 2004. However, instead of permitting the petitioners to proceed in the course, the respondents placed on its notice board the communication received from the respondent no. 1 which was communicated to the regional centers by e-mails dated 5th October, 2004. Pursuant thereto the petitioners were not permitted to deposit their fees and papers when they reported on the 12th October, 2004. The matter has remained pending in this court for this entire period. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners shall be permitted to submit their application forms and fees in terms of the orders passed by the respondent in their favor on the 29th September, 2004 and offer made to the petitioner on the 14th October, 2004 and be permitted to undertake the Bachelor of Education programme.
21. This shall not preclude the respondents from considering the matter and prescribing any special provisions in respect of availability of reserved seats to candidates seeking admission to the Bachelor of Education programme for the future courses. The respondents shall notify all prospective candidates of such stipulations in the Handbook and Prospectus published and circulated for the future courses. This is also the purport of the directions given by this court in the case of Sqn. Ldr. A. Choudhary (supra) which has been relied upon by the respondents.
This petition is allowed in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.