Madhya Pradesh High Court
Narendra Singh Sarparast Father Shri ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2019
Author: Sanjay Yadav
Bench: Sanjay Yadav
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.17012/2018 (Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others)
Gwalior, Dated:-24.9.2019
Shri K.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
Labour Department, State of Madhya Pradesh introduced the scheme for providing education and boarding facilities to the students who are children of the labourers under the caption "Shramoday Vidyalaya" with an object to provide better education to the children of the labourers who could not get the education due to money constraints. Under the scheme a selection examination is conducted annually. In the case at hand, the examinations were conducted on 30.5.2018 for the academic session 2018-2019 and the district-wise admissions were granted in various schools. The same was in accordance with the guidelines framed by the State Government and the decision taken thereon for effective implementation of the scheme to reach out to the maximum students at district level. This would be evident from the brochure brought on record as Annexure P/1. Clause 8 (iv) whereof stipulates:
"8 (iv)- p;u ijh{kk esa vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izkIrkad foHkkxh; iksVZy ij iznf'kZr fd;s tk;saxsA vH;FkhZ rFkk muds 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.17012/2018 (Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) ekrk&firk /;ku nsa fd p;fur Nk=&Nk=k dks mlh ftys ls lacaf/kr Jeksn; fo|ky; esa izos'k fn;k tkosxk] tgkW ls og p;u ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gq, FksA"
That a decision for giving admission at district level was taken by the Authority concerned in its meeting held prior to the examination which was held on 30.5.2018. The decision is also on record as Annexure R/1 and R/2 which is in the following terms:
"e-iz- Hkou ,oa vU; lafuekZ.k deZdkj dY;k.k e.My fo"k;% Jeksn; fon+;ky; izos'k ijh{kk] 2018 ,oa ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj djk;s tkus laca/khA Jeksn; fon+;ky; jkT; Lrjh; lapkyu lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 13-09- 2017 esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds ifjikyu esa Jeksn; fon+;ky; izos'k ijh{kk] 2018 dk vk;kstu 20 ebZ] 2018¼jfookj½ dks fd;k x;k gSA izos'k ijh{kk ijh{kk vk;kstu ,oa 'kS{kf.kd LVkWQ miyC/k djk;s tkus ckor Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx ds lkFk vk;qDr] yksd f'k{k.k lapkyuky; dk;kZy; esa fnukad 19 Qjojh] 2018 dks cSBd laiUu dh xbZ] ftlesa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; vuqlkj Jeksn; fon+;ky; izos'k ijh{kk] 2018 dk vk;kstu e/; izns'k jkT; eqDr Ldwy f'k{kk ifj"kn] Hkksiky }kjk djk;k x;k gSA ijh{kk vk;kstu mijkar ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj fd, tkus dh dk;Zokgh izfdz;k/khu gS] ftl ckor fuEu fcUnqvksa dh tkudkjh e/; izns'k jkt; eqDr Ldwy f'k{kk ifj"kn] Hkksiky dks miyC/k djk;k tkuk gS] ftl vk/kkj ij ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj fd;k tk ldsxkA 1- izR;sd fon+;ky; esa bl o"kZ d{kk 6oha] 7oha] 8oha] 9oha ,oa 11oha esa pkj&pkj lsD'ku gksaxsA izR;sd lsD'ku esa 40&40 Nk=@Nk=k,a gksaxsA bl izdkj ,d d{kk esa 160 fon+;kfFkZ;ksa dks izos'k fn;k tkuk gSA leLr d{kkvksa dks feykdj izR;sd fon+;ky; esa dqy 800 fon+;kfFkZ;ksa dks izos'k fn;k tkosxk ¼Jeksn; fon+;ky; jkT; Lrjh; lapkyu lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 13 flrEcj] 2017 esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ;kuqlkj½ 2- d{kk 11oha esa 'kS{kf.kd l= 2018&19 gsrq xf.kr] tho&foKku ,oa okf.kT;¼dkWelZ½ ladk; esa gh v/;;u ckor Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks izos'k fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gS] ftlesa nks lsD'ku xf.kr ladk; ds] ,d lsD'ku tho&foKku ladk; dk rFkk ,d lsD'ku okf.kT; ladk; dk j[kk tk ldrh gSA 3- Jeksn; fon+;ky; eas izos'k gsrq lHkh ftyksa dks fuekZ.k Jfedksa ds iath;u ds vk/kkj ij izfrfuf/kRo fn;k tkuk gSA mDr funsZ'k ds ikyukFkZ ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj djus ds nkSjku ftyk Lrjh; vkj{k.k ykxw fd, tkus dk fu.kZ; ysrs gq, e/; izns'k jkT; eqDr f'k{kk ifj"kn dks mDr laca/k esa voxr djk;k tkuk gSA 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.17012/2018 (Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) 4- ftyk Lrjh; Nk=&Nk=kvksa dk p;u ,oa vkj{k.k ykxw djus ckor ftysokj fuekZ.k Jfedksa ds iath;u ,oa Nk=&Nk=kvksa dh la[;k ftUgsa izos'k fn;k tkuk gS ,oa pkjksa Jeksn; fon+;ky;ksa ds lkFk lyaXu ftyksa dk fooj.k ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj djus esa lqfo/kk dh n`f"V ls rS;kj dj uLrh ds lkFk layXu gSA mDr fcUnqokj tkudkjh d`i;k vuqeksnukFkZ izLrqrA lfpo eku-]v/;{k egksn;"
"e/;izns'k Hkou ,oa vU; lafuekZ.k deZdkj dY;k.k e.My vkj&23] tksu&01] ,e-ih- uxj] Hkksiky nwjHkk"k&0755&2552663 QSDl&2552662 bZ&esy&[email protected] dz@Hklde@;kstuk@J-izdks-@63¼5½¼14½¼P5½@2018@3785 Hkksiky] fnukad 06-06-2018 izfr] lapkyd] e/; izns'k jkT; eqDr Ldwy f'k{kk ifj"kn] Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx] e/;izns'k 'kklu] HkksikyA fo"k;% Jeksn; fon+;ky; izos'k ijh{kk 2018 dk ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj djus ds laca/k esaA mijksDr fo"k;karxZr ys[k gS fd Jeksn; fon+;ky; izos'k ijh{kk] 2018 tks fd 20 ebZ] 2018 dks vk;ksftr dh xbZ gS] ftldk ijh{kk ifj.kke cukus ds nkSjku vko';d vkus okyh tkudkjh vkidh vksj fuEukuqlkj gS%& 1- izR;sd fon+;ky; esa bl o"kZ d{kk 6oha] 7oh] 8oha] 9oh] ,oa 11oha] esa pkj&pkj lsD'ku gksaxsA izR;sd lsD'ku esa 40&40 Nk=@Nk=k,a gksaxsA bl izdkj ,d d{kk esa 160 fon+;kfFkZ;ksa dks izos'k fn;k tkuk gS A leLr d{kkvksa dks feykdj izR;sd fon~;ky; eas dqy 800 fon~;kfFkZ;ksa dks izos'k fn;k tkosXkkA 2- d{kk 11oha] esa 'kS{kf.kd l= 2018&19 gsrq xf.kr] tho&foKku ,oa okf.kT; rFkk g;wesuVht izR;sd dks ,d ladk; esa v/;;u ckor Nk=&Nk=kvksa dks izos'k fn;k tk;sxkA 3- Jeksn; fon+;ky; esa izos'k gsrq lHkh ftyksa dks fuekZ.k Jfedksa ds iath;u ds vk/kkj ij izfrfuf/kRo fn;k tkuk gSA mDr funsZ'k ds ikyukFkZ ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj djus ds nkSjku ftyk Lrjh; vkj{k.k ykxw fd;k tk;sA 4- ftyk Lrjh; Nk=&Nk=kvksa dk p;u ,oa vkj{k.k ykxw djus ckor ftysokj fuekZ.k Jfedksa ds iath;u ,oa Nk=&Nk=kvksa dh la[;k ftUgsa izos'k fn;k tkuk gS ,oa pkjksa Jeksn; fon+;ky;ksa ds lkFk layXu ftyksa dk fooj.k ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj djus esa lqfo/kk dh n`f"V ls i= ds lkFk layXu dj vkidh vksj iszf"kr gSA mDr vk/kkj ij fon+;ky;okj ,oa d{kkokj ijh{kk ifj.kke rS;kj djus 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.17012/2018 (Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) ckor vuqjks/k gSA lfpo e-iz-Hk-l-d-d-e.My"
Grievance raised by the petitioners is that instead of forming unified combined merit list the department has wrongly taken recourse to admit the students district-wise, as a result whereof students like petitioners despite being more meritorious have been deprived of admission in a particular district. In this context, the petitioners vide present petition seeks following directions:
"7-1& izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dks vknsf'kr@funsZf'kr fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dkss vf/kd vad vkus ij vkoklh; fo|ky; esa izos'k gsrq p;u lwph esa uke 'kkfey fd;s tkus ds vkns'k@funsZ'k fn;s tkosA 7-2& izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd vkoklh; fo|ky; gsrq fn;s fn'kk funsZ'kksa dk ikyu dj laHkkxh; fo|ky; esa vkosfnr leLr Nk=&Nk=kvksa dh bdtkbZ eSfjV fyLV cuk;s tkdj p;u lwph dk fuekZ.k fd;k tkos bl dkj.k ls orZeku p;u lwph dks fujLr fd;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djsaA 7-3 ;gfd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd ;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dks vf/kd vad izkIr gksus ij esfjV fyLV ds vk/kkj ij vkoklh; fo|ky; esa p;u lwph esa uke 'kkfey dj izos'k fn;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djsaA 7-3 v&;gfd] izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd tkjh uohu vkns'k fnukad 06-06-2018 dks fujLr dj iwoZ esa tkjh foojf.kdk ds vuqlkj d{kkokj eSfjV fyLV dk fuekZ.k dj ;kfpdkdrkZx.kksa dks eSfjV fyLV esa ek= ik;s tkus ij fo|ky; esa izos'k fn;s tkus ds vkns'k ikfjr djsaA 7-4& ;gfd] vU; dksbZ vkns'k@funsZ'k ekuuh; U;k;ky; tks mfpr le>s tkjh fd;k tkosA Pertinent it is to note at this stage that during pendency of the 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.17012/2018 (Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) present petition certain wait-listed candidates namely petitioners no.1, 2,3,4,5, 10 and 12 were given admission to the respective classes on the basis of their position in the waiting list.
The respondents have filed their return, wherein they have contradicted the stand taken by the petitioners that the admissions have been granted dehors the scheme mooted by the State Government. It is urged that the respondent no.2, who is an Authority Competent to take decision as regard to reservation ratio which has been fixed as per the population of the construction labourers of each district and the said decision has been duly approved by the Chairman of the Board as per decision dated 2.6.2018. It is urged that the district-wise merit list was directed to be prepared. The entrance examination was got conducted by the Director of School Education and the admissions were strictly granted on the basis of the decision taken by the Competent Authority as contained in Annexure R/2. It is submitted by the respondents that total strength of the schools situated at Gwalior is near about 800 students of all classes out of which 476 admissions were made as per the merit list prepared for the vacant seats and the procedure as per waiting list. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot claim any benefit against the students Ku. Anushika as she has not been impleaded as party respondents. Even otherwise being female she has been granted 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.17012/2018 (Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) admission in the female category as per 50% reservation for women category. Therefore, there cannot be comparison between age of Pratap Singh and Ku. Anushika. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that petitioners want admission in Class VIII and Class IX and that less meritorious got admission is also not correct as the admission has been made strictly district-wise and on these contentions the respondent no.1 seeks dismissal of the petition.
The respondents no.2 to 5 have also filed the return, wherein while reiterating the stand taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh it is urged that there is no illegality committed in granting admission to the students district-wise.
Considered the rival submissions.
Evidently, the admission relates to academic session 2018-2019 which has already been made and even if for arguments sake it is accepted that the petitioners who are in the waiting list are held to be entitled for the relief as claimed for, the admission cannot be granted in mid session, therefore, contentions raised by the petitioners based on the scheme in vogue assume of academic nature as would warrant any adjudication in present petition. Evidently the examinations are held year to year basis and there is no provision commended at as would establish that a telescoping of admission is permissible. 7
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.17012/2018 (Narendra Singh and others Vs. State of M.P. and others) In view whereof, since no relief can be granted to the petitioners, petition fails and is dismissed. However, the legal issues raised are kept open for the future in appropriate matter. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) Judge Pawar/-
ASHISH PAWAR 2019.09.30 11:47:42 +05'30'