1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATAURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ORDER. Kanti Lal Meena Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1253/2000 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: February 9th, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE MR. H.R. Panwar, J. Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari,J. Mr. Harish Purohit for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Jangid, Addl. Advocate General. Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit for respondent. BY THE COURT ( Per Hon'ble Mr.Tatia,J): The substantial question of law referred to the larger Bench is as under:- “Whether the select list for admission or for service, where it is required to be prepared state-wise, can be prepared district-wise ?” The facts in short are that the petitioner sought admission to appear in Pre-Teachers Education Test (for short “PTET”) in the year 1999. These tests were conducted for the purpose of admission in various different Teachers Training Colleges for Bachelors Degree in Education. The petitioner was a member of Schedule Tribe and he disclosed so in his application form and according to the petitioner, 2 admission letter was also issued to the petitioner with specific note on the left top corner of the admission letter mentioning that it is for member of Schedule Tribe. The result of the PTET was declared by the respondent- University and the petitioner was declared successful and according to the petitioner, in the category of Schedule Tribe. The petitioner was permitted to take admission in Mahant Shree Raghunandan Dass Teachers Training College, Dungarpur. However, in the said admission letter, the petitioner was shown in the category of candidate of Dependent of Defence Personnel. The petitioner immediately contacted the officer-in-charge for the PTET, 1999 and the officer-in-charge of the PTET immediately made correction in the admission letter and his category was changed from candidate of Dependent of Defence Personnel to candidate in the category of Schedule Tribe. The petitioner, then took admission in the College referred above at Dungarpur. The petitioner then deposited the fees and he started pursuing his studies allowed by the said College at Dungarpur. However, the petitioner and the said college received registered letter on 22.10.1999, whereby the officer-in-charge PTET, conveyed to the Principal of the said College of Dungarpur that if the petitioner does not produce the certificate of Dependent of Defence Personnel, his admission be cancelled. The petitioner then challenged 3 the said action of the respondent by preferring S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4467/99. In said writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to continue the studies and, ultimately, the respondent's order, cancellation of admission of the petitioner, was quashed in the petitioner's Writ Petition No.4467/99. In the reply to the Writ Petition No.4467/99, it was submitted by the respondents that the petitioner was otherwise not eligible for admission to the B.Ed. Course as the petitioner secured only 270 marks which was below the cut off marks in the category of Schedule Tribe for the District Dungarpur whereas cut off marks for admission to B.Ed. College in the District of Dungarpur was 334. This Court in the petitioner's Writ Petition No.4467/99 observed that if the petitioner is not otherwise qualified then the respondents will be free to take action against the petitioner on the said ground. The respondents then started proceedings for cancellation of the admission of the petitioner to the B.Ed. Course on the ground that in district- wise, the merit list prepared for the admission to the course of B.Ed., the petitioner was not eligible. Faced with this situation, the petitioner preferred this writ petition and stated that the merit list for the admission to the course of B.Ed. could have been prepared only state-wise and not 4 district-wise. The petitioner's contention is that in other districts of the State of Rajasthan number of candidates have been given admission in the B.Ed. Course who secured less marks than the petitioner. Earlier the issue for admission to the B.Ed. Course came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahavir Prasad Jangid vs. State of Rajasthan & anr. and other 214 connected writ petitions. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 23.11.1987, held the district-wise preparation of the merit list for the purpose of grant of admission to the B.Ed. Colleges is just and legal and is not arbitrary or ultra vires. When the present petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge, it was submitted that the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahavir Prasad Jangid(supra) is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the cases of Govind A. Mahe & ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors. ( JT 2000(4) SC 384), Minor p. Rajendran v. State of Madras and others (AIR 1968 SC 1012) and Minor A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu & ors. ( AIR 1971 SC 2303). In view of above judgments, issue has been referred to the larger Bench as stated above. 5 We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Mahavir Prasad Jangid(supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Govind A. Mane(supra),Minor p. Rajendran(supra) and Minor A. Periakaruppan(supra). Govind A. Mane's case was decided on the basis of earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the cases of (1) Minor p. Rajendran v. State of Madras and others (AIR 1968 SC 1012) and (2) Minor A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu & ors. ( AIR 1971 SC 2303). It will be worthwhile to consider the judgment of the five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Minor P. Rajendran(supra) first. In the said case, the Madras High Court promulgated the Rules for selection of candidates for admission to the first year integrated M.B.B.S. Course. There was large rush of the candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges in the State of Madras, while the seats were limited. In view of this situation, the State of Madras framed the Rules for admission to the candidates wherein provision was made for district-wise allocation of seats. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering this issue, has held as under:- 6 “The question whether districtwise allocation is violative of Article 14 will depend on what is the object to be achieved in the matter of admission to medical colleges. Considering the fact that there is a larger number of candidates than seats available, selection has got to be made. The object of selection can only be to secure the best possible material for admission to colleges subject to the provision for socially and educationally backward classes. Further whether selection is from the socially and educationally backward classes or from the general pool, the object of selection must be to secure the best possible talent from the two sources. If that is the object, it must necessarily follow that that object would be defeated if seats are allocated district by district. It cannot be and has not been denied that the object of selection is to secure the best possible talent from the two sources so that the country may have the best possible doctors. If that is the object, the argument on behalf of the petitioners/appellant is that that object cannot possibly be served by allocating seats districtwise. It is true that Article 14 does not forbid classification, but the classification has to be justified on the basis of the nexus between the nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a reasonable 7 classification. The fact however that the classification by itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore, as the object to be achieved in a case of the kind with which we are concerned is to get the best talent for admission to professional colleges, the allocation of seats districtwise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. If anything, such allocation will result in many cases in the object being destroyed, and if that is so, the classification, even if reasonable, would result in discrimination, inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts may be admitted from either of the two sources.” (emphasis supplied) In the case of Minor A. Periakarupan(supra), Hon'ble the Apex Court, while considering the identical issue, observed that “Before a classification can be justified, it must be based on an objective criteria and further it must have reasonable nexus with the object intended to be achieved. The object intended to be achieved in the present case is to select the best candidates for being admitted to the Medical Colleges.” The above two decisions were followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Govind A 8 Mane's case(surpa). The facts of this case, already mentioned in earlier part of the judgment, clearly show that the petitioner denied admission to the B.Ed. Course because of only reason that in district-wise merit list he was not eligible for admission to B.Ed. Course, whereas the other candidates were given admission in other districts who secured less marks than the petitioner. The respondents submitted reply and relied upon admission rules 4 and 5, which provides to prepare the merit list district-wise and that too after taking into consideration the district from where the candidate passed the Secondary School Examination. According to the respondents, the petitioner since passed the Secondary School Examination from Dungarpur, therefore, his merit list was prepared at Dungarpur. From the reply filed by the State, we do not find any reason on the basis of which it has been decided to give admission to the B.Ed. Course after preparing merit list district-wise and no reason in support of any nexus to be achieved by providing such criteria for admission to the course of B.Ed. The B.Ed. Course is available to the candidates who shall ultimately be imparting education and shall be eligible for appointment to the post of teacher, obviously, in the entire State of Rajasthan, then there was no justification for giving 9 preference to those candidates who secured less marks within the State in competitive examination for giving admission in the B.Ed. Course providing opportunity to become teachers in the entire State of Rajasthan. In view of the above reasons and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred above, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court delivered in the case of Mahavir Prasad Jangid(supra) will not hold the field. In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred above, it is clear that the Constitution of India does not forbid the reasonable classification but the classification has to be justified on the basis of nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. The reasonableness in classification by itself is not enough to support the classification unless there is a nexus between the classification and the object to be achieved. The object to be achieved for admission to the technical course colleges, is to select best talent and the allocation of the seats district-wise has no reasonable relation with the object to be achieved. So far as second part of the above question is concerned, that refers the employment on the basis of district-wise merit list, that issue is not involved in the present facts of the case in any manner and, therefore, there is no need to answer this issue by the larger Bench. 10 The writ petition could have been sent to the Single Bench of this Court after deciding the question referred to the Larger Bench but since the petitioner has already completed his studies in the B.Ed. Course by virtue of order of this Court as an interim order, therefore, after nine years of the petitioner's obtaining the decree of B.Ed., this Court finds no reason to send the matter back to the Single Bench of this Court and it is proper to decide the writ petition itself, as the law point has been decided in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the action of the respondents seeking cancellation of the admission of the petitioner to B.Ed. Course cannot be justified and, therefore, it is held that the petitioner was entitled to pursue his course of the B.Ed. irrespective of the fact that in his District, he secured less marks than the last candidate to whom admission was given by preparing the district-wise merit list. The question is answered, as above and the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed in the terms referred above. (DINESH MAHESHWARI),J. (H.R. PANWAR),J. ( PRAKASH TATIA), J. mlt.