1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3621 of 2010 Date of decision: 18.8.2010 Gram Panchayat Khalel & another ….. Petitioners. Vs. Chudhary Sharawan Kumar H.P. Agriculture University, Palampur …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the Petitioners : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners-Gram Panchayats approached this Court with certain grievances regarding non-reservation of two seats each to the bonafide residents of Rajpur and Khalet Panchayats in the respondent-University. That on 1.7.2010, this court passed the following order in CMP No. 5601/2010:- “Petitioners pray that the reservation of two seats each for bonafide residents of Rajpur and Khalet Panchayats, which has been followed from 1966 till date may be continued. We find that this reservation of two seats each was given to the bonafide residents of those Panchayats in consideration of those Panchayats donating the land to the University. The learned Standing counsel for the University has now made available the decision of the Committee appointed by the Vice Chancellor indicating the 2 reason for the discontinuance. The decision of the Committee dated 4.11.2009 to the relevant extent reads as follows: “1.The land donated for the establishment of the then Junior Agriculture College at Palampur by Rajpur village has already been transferred to Co-Operative Tea Factory, Palampur on 15.9.1973 vide mutation No.173 vide Secretary Agriculture letter No.42-1/71 Min Janive dated 29.5.1971. Similarly, as per revenue record, the land donated by Khalate Panchayat is under the possession of Forest Department, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh. As such, there is no land either of Rajpur Panchayat or Khalet Panchayat under the possession of this University. 2. *** ***** ***** RECOMMENDATIONS Keeping in view the above mentioned points as well as all the pros and cone of the issue, the committee observed that the said reservation was being provided to the residents of Rajpur and Khalet Panchayats for admission to undergraduate programme i.e. B.Sc. (Agriculture) since four decades i.e. 1966, which is at present neither constitutional nor justifiable as the possession of land in question is with the other departments.” We are afraid that the decision rested on the above recommendation of the Committee may not be justified if not reasonable. From the year 1966, it is not in dispute that two seats each were given to the Panchayats, referred to above, till date, for 44 years and such accommodation was given only on consideration of the fact that the Panchayats had donated their land to the University. The only reason stated by the University for dis-continuing the accommodation is that the land donated by the Panchayats is no more in the possession of the University. If that be the only reason, the donors 3 cannot be blamed. It is the donee alone, who can be blamed in case the land donated by the donors for setting up the University has gone out of their hands. 2. Therefore, we are prima facie of the view that the discontinuance of the accommodation of granting two seats each to the bonafide residents of that Panchayats cannot be discontinued for the abovementioned reason that the University is not now in possession of the donated land. 3. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the University to continue the practice followed for the last more than four decades in accommodating two students each from among the bonafide residents of Rajpur and Khalet Panchayats, if available and of course subject to the condition that they fulfil the required other conditions of eligibility. 4. In order to allay the apprehension of misuse of accommodation, as above, it is clarified that the accommodation, as above, will be available only to the descendents of those bonafide residents, who were in the Panchayats as on 1966. 5. Post on 18th August, 2010. Reply, if any, in the meanwhile. “ 2. The Counsel for both the sides submit that the said order can be made absolute and writ petition can be disposed of. Ordered Accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of in view of the order extracted above. ( Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice ( Kuldip Singh) Judge August 18, 2010 (sks/pankaj)