Case: SHREYAS SINHA  Vs. THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES &amp; ORS.

choice of admission would not be possible at such a stage because of the large number of candidates taking CLAT. Therefore, the University had decided to give the benefit of reservation in terms of the Amending Act from the next Academic Year. It was argued that even if the option for domicile for West Bengal candidates was made available to the appellant, still, he would only have a remote chance of getting admission in the University keeping his rank in the merit list. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment of this Court in P . Bhima Reddy v. State of Mysore & Ors. (1969) 1 SCC 68 to contend the expression commencement of the Amending Act at once means within a reasonable time after the commencement of the Act. The decision of the Executive Council of the University was taken within a reasonable time and cannot be said to be arbitrary as the admission process was initiated before the Amending Act came into force. Therefore, it was not possible to give effect to the provisions of the Act from the Academic Session 2019-2020. Thus, the action of the University to grant the benefit of the Amending Act from the next academic session cannot be said to be unreasonable and is a possible decision in terms of the Amending Act. 15. The Bill for amending the Act was tabled on 16 th November, 2018. The same came to be approved and published in the State Government Gazette on 21 st May 2019. The Amending Act comes into force at once i.e. on 21 st May 2019 but there is no provision in the Amending Act that it will apply to the on-going admission process. The University was mandated to provide compulsory reservation of seats to the extent of at least 30% of the total intake in the University but the year from which the said admission was to be reserved was not prescribed in the statute. The Academic Council of the University in its 36 th meeting held on 27 th July, 2019 resolved that 30% reservation for West Bengal domiciles will be implemented from the next Academic Year. Such decision of the Academic Council was approved by the Executive Council of the University on 10 th August, 2019. 16. The total seats at the University are 127 including the seats meant for State domicile candidates prior to the amendment. The additional seats reserved were required to be provided at the time of initiation of the admission process which started in January, 2019. Each of the candidates intending to appear in the CLAT is required to give three choices for admission into the National Law Universities. The candidates had given these choices keeping in view the reservation policy of each State. Since the reservation policy of 30% seats was not available on the date when the admission process was initiated, the decision of the University to provide reservation from the next Academic Year cannot be said to be contradictory to the provisions of the Amending Act. The Act is silent in respect of Academic Year in which the benefit of reservation is to be given. The candidates have already applied and given an option for admission in the various National Law Universities before the coming into force of the Amending Act. Therefore, the University extended the benefit of the reservation from the next Academic Session. We find such decision to be fair, reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. 17. None of the judgments referred to by Mr. Vikas Singh are helpful to the arguments raised. In Anupal Singhs case, the challenge was to the bifurcation of vacancies in the cadre of subordinate agricultural service in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that it amounts to changing of the rules of the game in the middle of the selection process. However, the bifurcation of seats amongst the different categories was due to the wrong calculation of seats as per the statutory provisions. It was held that such an amendment in the bifurcation of seats did not amount to change of rules of the game as it was necessitated on account of a mistaken calculation of seats in terms of the provisions of the statute. 18. S. Krishna Sradhas case is applicable only if a meritorious candidate has been denied admission. In the present case, the appellant cannot be said to be a meritorious candidate in the Academic Session 2019-2020. The benefit of reservation had been extended to the candidates by the Universities from the next Academic Session i.e. 2020-2021. Since there is no mandate in the Amending Act to grant the benefit of reservation in the Academic Year 2019-2020, therefore, the University keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances has rightly held that the benefit of reservation would be extended from the next academic year as the admission process had already been initiated before coming into force of the Amending Act. 19. We also find that the judgment referred to by Mr. Chatterji is not helpful to the arguments raised. The case pertained to a successful tenderer who was not granted a license because he had failed to furnish a statement of immovable properties and to furnish certain sureties as required by the Rules prescribed. It was in these circumstances, the Court held that the expression at once has to be interpreted as to be within a reasonable time. However, the Amending Act in the present case came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. Since the Amending Act does not contemplate that the benefit of reservation has to be granted in the ongoing academic session, therefore, the University was at liberty to decide to extend the benefit from the next academic session. 20. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the High Court or that this decision of the University contravenes the provisions of the Amending Act, which may warrant interference in the present appeal.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15. The Bill for amending the Act was tabled on 16 th November, 2018. The same came to be approved and published in the State Government Gazette on 21 st May 2019. The Amending Act comes into force at once i.e. on 21 st May 2019 but there is no provision in the Amending Act that it will apply to the on-going admission process. The University was mandated to provide compulsory reservation of seats to the extent of at least 30% of the total intake in the University but the year from which the said admission was to be reserved was not prescribed in the statute. The Academic Council of the University in its 36 th meeting held on 27 th July, 2019 resolved that 30% reservation for West Bengal domiciles will be implemented from the next Academic Year. Such decision of the Academic Council was approved by the Executive Council of the University on 10 th August, 2019.16. The total seats at the University are 127 including the seats meant for State domicile candidates prior to the amendment. The additional seats reserved were required to be provided at the time of initiation of the admission process which started in January, 2019. Each of the candidates intending to appear in the CLAT is required to give three choices for admission into the National Law Universities. The candidates had given these choices keeping in view the reservation policy of each State. Since the reservation policy of 30% seats was not available on the date when the admission process was initiated, the decision of the University to provide reservation from the next Academic Year cannot be said to be contradictory to the provisions of the Amending Act. The Act is silent in respect of Academic Year in which the benefit of reservation is to be given. The candidates have already applied and given an option for admission in the various National Law Universities before the coming into force of the Amending Act. Therefore, the University extended the benefit of the reservation from the next Academic Session. We find such decision to be fair, reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.17. None of the judgments referred to by Mr. Vikas Singh are helpful to the arguments raised. In Anupal Singhs case, the challenge was to the bifurcation of vacancies in the cadre of subordinate agricultural service in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that it amounts to changing of the rules of the game in the middle of the selection process. However, the bifurcation of seats amongst the different categories was due to the wrong calculation of seats as per the statutory provisions. It was held that such an amendment in the bifurcation of seats did not amount to change of rules of the game as it was necessitated on account of a mistaken calculation of seats in terms of the provisions of the statute.18. S. Krishna Sradhas case is applicable only if a meritorious candidate has been denied admission. In the present case, the appellant cannot be said to be a meritorious candidate in the Academic Session 2019-2020. The benefit of reservation had been extended to the candidates by the Universities from the next Academic Session i.e. 2020-2021. Since there is no mandate in the Amending Act to grant the benefit of reservation in the Academic Year 2019-2020, therefore, the University keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances has rightly held that the benefit of reservation would be extended from the next academic year as the admission process had already been initiated before coming into force of the Amending Act.19. We also find that the judgment referred to by Mr. Chatterji is not helpful to the arguments raised. The case pertained to a successful tenderer who was not granted a license because he had failed to furnish a statement of immovable properties and to furnish certain sureties as required by the Rules prescribed. It was in these circumstances, the Court held that the expression at once has to be interpreted as to be within a reasonable time. However, the Amending Act in the present case came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette. Since the Amending Act does not contemplate that the benefit of reservation has to be granted in the ongoing academic session, therefore, the University was at liberty to decide to extend the benefit from the next academic session.20. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the High Court or that this decision of the University contravenes the provisions of the Amending Act, which may warrant interference in the present appeal.