DBSAW167/2010 DBSAW102/2010 DBSAW103/2010 DBSAW110/2010 DBSAW170/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT IN 1. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.167/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13663/2009 With D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.319/2010 Gaurav Tripathi Vs. Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Others 2. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.102/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13663/2009 With D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.209/2010 Shashank Gupta Vs. Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Others 3. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.103/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13663/2009 With D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.210/2010 Gaurav Tak and Another Vs. Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Others 4. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.110/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13663/2009 Kshitij Pareek Vs. Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Others 5. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.170/2010 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13663/2009 With D.B. Civil Misc. Stay Appl. No.328/2010 Registrar, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Another DBSAW167/2010 DBSAW102/2010 DBSAW103/2010 DBSAW110/2010 DBSAW170/2010 // 2 // Vs. Kshitij Pareek and Others Date of Order ::: 09.11.2010 Present Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Mr. Arun Mishra Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Abhinav Sharma, Counsel for Gaurav Tripathi, Shashank Gupta, Gaurav Tak & Shefali Gupta Ms. Naina Saraf, Counsel for petitioner- appellant Kshitij Pareek Shri Ajeet Kumar Sharma, Counsel for University of Rajasthan #### By the Court:- These special appeals have been preferred by wards of University employees as well as by University of Rajasthan, calling in question sustainability of order dated 18.12.2009 passed by Single Bench in Civil Writ Petition No.13663/2009. Prayer was made by petitioner Kshitij Pareek to direct respondents to give admission to him through counselling in the course of MBA and to cancel admissions of those candidates in six seats reserved for wards of University employees as they have obtained qualification prescribed for eligibility after 31.08.2009. The University contested the matter contending that admission DBSAW167/2010 DBSAW102/2010 DBSAW103/2010 DBSAW110/2010 DBSAW170/2010 // 3 // had been given on basis of marks obtained in written test (50% weightage) and marks obtained in qualifying exam (50% weightage). As results of various courses were not declared in time by University, date was extended to submit mark- sheet from 31.08.2009 to 04.09.2009. It was again extended to 07.09.2009 and thereafter till 15.09.2009. Petitioner stood much below in rank as compared to candidates who were given admissions. Single Bench dismissed writ petition on the ground that such reservation for wards of University employees cannot be said to be inconsonance with and in spirit of Article 14 of Constitution of India. As provision has been held to be ultra-vires, no relief has been given to petitioner. Aggrieved by order of Single Bench, intra-court appeals have been preferred not only by petitioner Kshitij Pareek but also by six incumbents who were given admissions in MBA course and also by University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Ms. Naina Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-appellant Kshitij Pareek, has submitted that action of University in extending date for submission of DBSAW167/2010 DBSAW102/2010 DBSAW103/2010 DBSAW110/2010 DBSAW170/2010 // 4 // mark-sheet was in order to help out candidates who could not clear examination by 31.08.2009. Thus, their candidature could not have been considered in accordance with law. She has also submitted that written test was a criteria for other candidates whereas different criteria was prescribed for wards of University employees regarding their eligibility in the brochure. Same was also impermissible. Shri Ajeet Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of University, has submitted that provision for reservation of wards of University employees was not in question before Single Bench, as such, it could not have been held to be violative of provisions of Article 14 of Constitution of India. Shri Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of incumbents who were given admissions against six seats in the year 2009, has also supported submissions of Shri Ajeet Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the University. First coming to submissions raised by Ms. Naina Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-appellant Kshitij Pareek, DBSAW167/2010 DBSAW102/2010 DBSAW103/2010 DBSAW110/2010 DBSAW170/2010 // 5 // that extension of date for submitting mark- sheet was illegal. No doubt about it that last date for submitting mark-sheet was 31.08.2009, however, date was extended to 04.09.2009, again to 07.09.2009 and lastly till 15.09.2009. University has stated reasons for extending date as result of qualifying examination could not be published by University in time, the date had to be extended. Extension of date was with respect to all candidates to submit mark- sheets of qualifying/eligibility examination. Considering the fact that there was delay in publishing result by University, we find that action could not be said to be illegal or arbitrary in any manner. Coming to second submission raised by Ms. Naina Saraf, appearing on behalf of petitioner-appellant, that written test was the criteria for giving admission to other categories except for wards of University employees, no doubt about it that for other categories written entrance test was criteria, however, in the brochure published by University it was made clear that for wards of University employees eligibility criteria has to be as under:- DBSAW167/2010 DBSAW102/2010 DBSAW103/2010 DBSAW110/2010 DBSAW170/2010 // 6 // “University Wards Eligibility and Fee: As per University rules. University Ward Admission Process: For wards of University employees, the merit list will be drawn on the basis of marks obtained in written test (50% weightage) and marks obtained in the qualifying exam (50% weightage) (Applicant has to obtain minimum pass percentage/marks prescribed for PIM-MAT). In case of tie between two candidates percentage of +2 examination will be considered and benefit will be given to the applicant with higher percentage of +2 examination.” It is apparent from aforesaid provision that written test as well as qualifying examination 50% weightage was given to each i.e. written test and qualifying examination. There is nothing arbitrary in it and once petitioner-appellant has participated and stood lower in merit, he has no right to challenge aforesaid criteria. It cannot be said that petitioner was discriminated as he stood lower in merit as compared to other candidates. Coming to submission raised by Shri Ajeet Kumar Sharma and Shri Abhinav Sharma that provision for reservation of wards of University employees could not be held to be unconstitutional particularly when provision was not assailed. In our view, when petitioner DBSAW167/2010 DBSAW102/2010 DBSAW103/2010 DBSAW110/2010 DBSAW170/2010 // 7 // had sought relief of obtaining admission under provision which is per-se unconstitutional, the Single Bench was right in declining relief on aforesaid ground. The counsel were unable to show that how the provision can withheld test of constitutionality under parameters of Article 14 of Constitution. The Single Bench has relied upon decision rendered in Tanvinder Kumar and Another Vs. The Punjab University, Chandigarh and Another – 1990 (6) SLR 681, wherein the Court has also laid down that such reservations are not permissible. The Apex Court in Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 vs. Osiris Das – 1992 (3) SCC 543, has laid down that reservation of seats in favour of wards of University employees was apparently violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India; no court could issue direction for enforcement of any such reservation. In Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology etc. vs. State of Punjab and Another – 1997 (2) SCC 65, Apex Court has laid down that reservation in favour of wards of college and mill/school staff of the Institution does not satisfy test of admission being given DBSAW167/2010 DBSAW102/2010 DBSAW103/2010 DBSAW110/2010 DBSAW170/2010 // 8 // strictly on basis of merit as laid down by Apex Court, hence it was held to be impermissible. Since provision has been held to be unconstitutional, we deem it appropriate to direct that admissions given before the order passed by us in this intra court appeals, shall not be disturbed. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find challenge to impugned order to be meritless. However, admissions given till date of passing of this order, shall not be disturbed. In future the University shall not admit any student against such a quota. The order passed by Single Bench stands modified to aforesaid extent. Appeals are accordingly disposed of. Stay applications, filed with appeals, also stand disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. (Arun Mishra) Acting CJ. //Jaiman//