l'..S^-J ..•T&U ,-"ni ,'DT np TI ihT/'.n ri% i i^fi uWi^u>^*=i » ATI 'BC AT BTI ^?RS ic^ i ^»i»i S &f^t lf\ fft JW » ?i-T' io^rvis ^^.SF'.J_ un p^TTTT/'^KI^D. 5P;^D/°)-Ktr*'SMT<S< ni—t.rfrWS'^^—i^i 1 ^' w ^i £»vy^ aqed "bout 24 years, resident of •Seetan.iaiM iryal r, Karbaiu Road. Street No.3, Biiasour (C.&.) •Versus- 1 Tnff ^+—.!>~f /'hl——iannr» u, Sii%>\^i<n|i£>Wj •U'iil Sini i I^^Um , Throuqh ths Sscre+ai'y, bepar'tment of Higher Education b.K.-S. Bhawan, Raipur (€.6.) 2. &uru UniversiTy. Bilaspur, Through Registrar, ©uru Universlty, Bilospur. POST FOR ORDER ON 17T" DfcCEmBER. 2003 Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge ^i ^f ii^ ^.f <»' 16.12.2003 HI^-1 COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CC.6.} WRFT pErmoN NO. soos OF 2003 PETITIQNER; RESPON&ENTS! Ashish Soni 5/o Shri S.P.Soni, aged about 24 years, resident of ©eetanjaliNa9ar, Karbalo Road, Street No.3, Bilaspur (C.6.) -Versus- 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Throu9h the Secretary, bepartment of Higher Education, &.K.S. Bhcnwan, Raipur (C.G.) ©uru©hosidasUniversity, Bilaspur, Throu9h Registrar, Gwu ©hasidcsUniversity, Bilaspur. Petitioner by Shri tshirendra Mishra, Advocate. State/Respondent No.l by Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, Deputy Advoeate ffeneral. Respondent No.2 by Shri AAonindr'a Shrivastava, Advocate. ^-""'. Before: Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo. J OR E>ER (Passed on/^.December 2003) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the decision of the Respondent No.2 whereby the petitioner has not been considered for admission to the AA.B.A. Course on the ground that he has not secured 50% aggregate marks in the graduation degree course examination. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner being a B.Com. 5raduate of 6uru Ghasidas University i.e. Respondent No.2 allowed to appear in Chhati-isgarh Pre-M.B.A. Test, 2003 conducted by the Respondent No.2. He successfully participated in the written examination, he was called for group discussionand personal inten/iew in which the petitioner succeeded and thereafter he was invited for counseiing on 1 September 2003 vide Annexure P/4. However he was not considered for adniission on the ground tiiat he had secured less than 50% marks in the graduation. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that the rule book pubtished by the Respondent No.2 prominently prescribes that the eligibilit/ conditions as mentioned in ftule 2.3 of Chapter 2 is required to be fulfilled by all the condidates and Rule 2.3.1 of Chapter 2 clearly prescribes the educationsl qualification for admission to 2 yesrs full time M.B.A. Course as Sraducte/Post Sraduate of any discipline of any Indion University or Foreign University'/Institute. It a!so prescribes that the ©raduationshouid be of 3 years regular study after passing 12 Ctass examination of 10+2 Scheme. The petitioner qualifies both the educational criteria prescribed by the Respondent No.2. He had furnished the relevont educational certificates, domicile certificate ond caste certificate. However, the Respondent No.2 refused to give admission to the petitioner on non-existent ground which is manifestly illegal and opposed to natural justice aid public po!icy. 4. No return has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.l in spite of the opportunity given to the State. Howeve", return has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.2 in which it has been mentioned that mere empanelment or inciusion of name in the select list does not give the petitioner any indefeasible or vested right for admission in the M.B.A. Course. The empanelment of the petitioner was only for the purpose of preparing a list of candidates according / to their merit for being forwarded to different institutions including the onswering institution. In addition to his emponelment the petitioner is also required to fulfill other minimum eligibility criteria oppSicable to the particular institution where the seats are lying and according to the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for admission to M.B.A. courses under Ordnance No.44 of 6uru Shasides Universit/, Bilaspur which has the force of law, minimum qualification for admission to M.B.A. program is "Sraduates from all disciplines with degree recognized by &jru Shasidas University, Bilaspur as equivalent to graduate or post-graduate degree, provided they have secured 50% of marks (45% for SC/ST candidates) or above in cggregate at the first graduate or post-graduate degree examination." Therefore, in order to ciaim admission a person must possess the necessary qualification. 5. Ths 5overnment of Chhattisgarh, Depart-ment of Higher Education, Technical Education, Science and Teehnology ordered the Respondent No.2 to act as an agency to conduct Chhattisgarh Pre- M.B.A. and AA.C.A. Entrcnce Test, 2003. On ttie basis of the instructions so issued, the ftespondent No.2 obtained necessary guidelines and instructions from the ^overnment vide letter received on 29.11.2002. The Respondent No.2 also received the rules for admission as prescribed by the Oirector of Technica! Education, Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Relevant excerpts of the rules of admission which were framed by the Respondent No.2 as contained in Chapter- 2. The Respondent No-2 was directed to hold entrance test for admission to AA.B.A. and M.C.A. course in two private institutions affiliated to the Institute of Mcmagement, Pt. Ravi Shankar Universit/, Raipur and the Institute of Monagefflent, Suru Shasidas University, Bilaspur. Relevant rules relating to admission to M.B.A. / 1/1 "1 course for Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Raipur is annexed as Annexure R-2/4. 6. I have heard Mr. Dhirendra Mishrc, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mcuiindra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/6uru fihasidas University and Shri Saijay K. Agarwal, learned Deputy Advocate feneral for the Respondent No.l/State. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the broehure issued by the Respondent No.2 for C.Q. Pre-M.B.A. Test, 2003 and the Rule 2.3.1 of Chapter-2 prescribes the educational qualification and as per this rule a candidate is required to be a ©raduateor Postgraduate in any discip'ine of any Indian University or Foreign University or Institute recognized by the concerned University as equivalent thereto and no minimum percentage of marks at that examination has been prescribed. He further submitt-ed that these Rules were approved by the Director of Technical Education, 5ovt. of Chhattisgarh. As per paragrq3h-3 of the return thisexamination was conducted for two private institutions affiliated to the institute of Management, Pandit Ravi Shankar University, Raipur and the institute of Mcinagement 6uru iShashidas University, Bilespur.Therefore, he submitted that the Respondent No.2 was not within its right to not to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to the M.B.A. course as these rutes were framed by the State 6ovt. and in this rule fflinimum marks of 50% was not prescribed. 8. Learned counse! for the petitioner further submitted that one AA.B.A. course is being conducted by the Pt. Rayi Shankar University, Raipur and one is being conducted in 6uru Shasidas University', Bitaspur oaid two by other two private institutions affiliated with Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Raipur csnd as per Ordnance No. 88 of Pt. /// Rayi Shonkar University (Annexure R-2/4) a O.B.C. candidate having Sraduate degree with at least 45% marks is eligible for oppearing in M.B.A. Test examination cnd as per Annexure R-2/3 issued by the 6ovt. o-f Chhatt-isgarh a O.B.C. candidate having &raduate degree with 40% marks is eligiblefor admission. 9. On the other hand learned Deputy Advocate (Senera! argued that if any oandidate is not holding a graduate degree with minimum prescribed percentage, he cannot be given adfflission. For this purpose he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Judoment TodGv 2002 (S) SC 84 Professiona! Examinction Board M.P. & another Vs. Prashant Agarwal &another. 10. Leamed counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that as per Ordnance No. 44 of 6uru Shasidas University, a candidate must possess a graduate degree with at least 50% marks and he further submitted that even if Rule 2.3.1 of the Rules for admission to M.B.A. test examiRation 2003 does not prescribe minimum percentage of marks, even then in view of the Ordnonce No.44 of ouru Shasidas University, the petitioner is not entitled for admission. 11. It is admitted position that for M.B.A. Course centralize entrance examination is being conducted by Pt. Ravi Shankar University, ftaipur and 6uru Shasidas University, Bilaspur in the aiternative. It is also admitted position that the Rules for admission are prepared with the approval of the State of Chhattisgarh, Director, Technical :ducation and this examination was conducted for four M.B.A. colleges i.e. one course is being conducted by Kespondent No.2, and 3 colleges are under Pt. Ravi Shankar University. In the first place the rules for eligibility to appear in the M.B.A. course admission for the year 2003 does not prescribe minimum percentage at the !eve! of ^ ^raduation degree. Rule 2.3.1 simply prescribes that a candidate seeking admission to two years fulltime fA.S.A. Course should be a Sraduate. In alternative even if we consider the arguments of learned counse! for the Respondent No.2 Shri Manindra Shrivastava the Ordnance No.88 of Pt. Ravi Shankar Universrty lays down that a O.B.C. amdidate holding ©roduatedecree or Postgraduate degree of the University with at teast 45% marks is eligible for admission to the M.B.A. course and even Additional Director, Technicsl Education communicated the Registrar of Respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 29 November, 2002. i41ong witii this letter a document is annexed which shows that a 6raduate is eligible for admission to the M.B.A. course. In the 'eligibility conditions' it is mentioned that a 0.6.C. couididate who is appearing or has appeared for finai year of any degree examination passed bachelor examination with at least 40% marks is eligible for admission. 12. Even in the entrance test conducted for M.B.A. course for the year 2002-2003 by the Pt. Ravishankcr University the O.B.C. candidate with 40% firaduation degree were considered for admission to M.B.A. COWS&. 13.It is not disputed that the petitioner is a O.B.C. candidate who possess graduation degree with 48% marks. In view of the above position since the petitioner possess 6raduation decree with 48% marks ond he is an O.B.C. candidate, therefore he is eligible for admission to the M.B.A. course 2003-2004, therefore he has been wrongly denied the admission as he is entitled for consideration for admission in the M.B.A. course 2003-2004 conducted by the Respondent No.2. 14.Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 argued that Pt. Ravi Shankdr University has not been arrayed as part/, therefore tjie /^ L Respondent No.2 cannot be directed to consider the ca^ of the petitioner for admission to 1+ie colleges which are under the controi of Pt. ftavi Shankar University. I do not find any substance in the argument for the reoson that the centralize examination was conducted by the Respondent No.2 under the order of tiie 6ovt. of Chhattisgarh, Technical Education Department and that was conducted for ai! the four colleges and even the admission process for ali ths four coileges were conducted by the Respondent No.2. Therefore Pt. Ravi Shankar University is not a necessary party and the Respondent No.2 has to consider the case of the petitioner for admission. 15.As far as the argument of leamed Deputy Advoeate Seneral is concemed. since the petitioner possess the minimum qualification preseribed for the M.B.A. course vide Annexure R-2/3, -riierefore the judgment cited by the Respondent No.l is of no help. 16.In the result the petition of the petitioner is allowed and the Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for admission to the M.B.A. course 2003-04. Sd/- , L.C.BHADOO Judge' Thakur