Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abhinav Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 7 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: (2004)136PLR196
Author: Nirmal Singh
Bench: Nirmal Singh
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. In these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for striking down Entry 1 of Annexure x attached with the prospectus issued by Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (for short, the University) whereby the examination conducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna (for short, the Council) has been included in the list of examinations which have been de-recognised. They have further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the University and Apeejay College of Engineering, Village Silani, District Gurgaon (for short, the College) to treat them eligible for admission in Bachelor of Engineering Course against management quota seats.
2. For the sake of convenience, we may notice the facts from CWP No. 12680 of 2003.
3. After having passed 10+2 examination conducted by the Council in the year 2002, petitioner-Abhinav Kumar appeared in All India Engineering Pharmacy/Architecture Entrance Examination-2003 (for short, 'AIEEE-2003') conducted by the Central Board of School Education. He was declared successful and placed at No. 8995 in the State list. However, he was not allowed to participate in the counselling held for the purpose of admission of the successful candidates on the ground that 10+2 examination passed by him is not recognised. He then applied to the Principal of the College for admission against the management quota seats clearly stating in the application that he had passed 10+2 examination conducted by the Council. However, the College authorities did not consider his case for admission apparently because the examination conducted by the Council was included in the list of de-recognised examinations published in the prospectus issued by the University.
4. In other writ petitions, the petitioners have come up with similar grievance. They too appeared in AIEEE-2003 conducted by the Central Board of School Education and secured sufficiently high merit in the State list, but they were denied admission only on the ground that 10+2 examination passed by them is not recognised by the Haryana School Education Board (for short, the Haryana Board) and the University.
5. The petitioners have relied on the decision taken in the meeting held on 7.11.2002 under the Chairmanship of Additional Secretary, Department of Secondary and Higher Education (Ministry of Human Resource Development), which was attended by the representatives of the State of Haryana, University Grants Commission and All India Council for Technical Education and others to treat the examination conducted by the Council as duly recognised and order dated 24.3.2003 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 14815 of 2001 - Ravi Chanda Atma and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. and pleaded that the decision of the University and the College not to consider them for admission in the Bachelor of Engineering Course is illegal, arbitrary and violative of their fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, it has been averred that the University was authorised to conduct Common Engineering Entrance Test and that the petitioners were not considered for admission in the B.E. Course because 10+2 examination conducted by the Council has been de-recognised by the University. It has been further averred that on receipt of representation dated 18.7.2003 (Annexure R2) made by the father of petitioner-Abhinav Kumar, a copy of order dated 24.3.2003 passed by the High Court in Ravi Chandra Atma's case (supra) was sent to the Registrar of the University for taking necessary action and even the College authorities forwarded copy of the order of the High Court to the University for taking necessary action.
7. In the written statement filed on behalf of the University, it has been averred that all the examinations of the School Education Boards up to the level of 10+2 which have been recognised by the Haryana Board are recognised by the University for the purpose of admission to different courses. It has been further averted that Haryana Board had withdrawn recognition of the Council in view of the order passed by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 8642 of 1994 - Ompati and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. and therefore, the University did not consider the candidature of the petitioners.
8. The stand taken by the College is that the candidature of petitioners-Abhinav Kumar and Akhilendra Prasad was not considered in view of letter No. AC-III/02/28529-28702 dated 21.6.2002 (Annexure R4/1) sent by the University. In the written statement filed on behalf of the College, it has been averred that copy of order dated 24.3.2003 passed by the High Court in Ravi Chandra Atma's case (supra) was sent to the Registrar of the University but no reply has been received from him.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through order dated 24.3.2003 passed in Ravi Chandra Atma's case (supra).
10. Learned counsel representing the respondents candidly admitted that the Council was initially established in the year 1980 through an Ordinance issued by the Governor of Bihar, which was later on replaced by Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992. They also conceded that the examinations conducted by the Council are recognised by premier institutions, like AIIMS 'IIT' National Law School, Delhi University, JNU New Delhi, Union Public Service Commission, Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi and Central Board of Secondary Education. They also do not contest the fact that in the meeting held on 7.11.2002 under the Chairmanship of Additional Secretary, Department of Secondary and Higher Education (Ministry of Human Resource Development), the issue pertaining to recognition of the examinations conducted by the Council was specifically discussed and it was decided that all higher technical institutions shall recognise the examinations of the Schools/Boards/Councils and the name of the Council appears at No. 1 in the list appended to the minutes of the said meeting (Annexure P3) (in so far as it concerns the State of Bihar). It is, thus, clear that the examination conducted by the Council stands recognised by the Government of India.
11. In Ravi Chandra Atma 's case (supra), this Court, after taking note of the fact that the Council is a creature of the statute and has been recognised by various premier institutions of the country, allowed the writ petition and quashed the order passed by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra cancelling the provisional admission of the petitioners. In the concluding portion of the order passed in that case, the court observed:
"Before parting with the case, we deem it proper to observe that the University and its bodies will be well-advised to reconsider the decision on the issue of de-recognition of the Council keeping in view the fact that it is a creation of an Act of the State Legislature and the decision taken in the meeting held on 7.11.2002 under the auspices of the Ministry of Human Resource Development."
12. It is borne out from the record of these cases that the Government of Haryana had written to various Universities in the State to take action in the light of the observations made by the Court in Ravi Chandra Atma's case (supra), but no action appears to have been taken so far by the concerned Universities. It is unfortunate that the institutions, which fall within the meaning of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, have failed to take necessary action in furtherance of the decision taken by the Government of India. Even the Haryana Board, which is an instrumentality of the State has failed to act according to the decision taken by the Committee which consisted among others a representative of the Government of Haryana.
13. Be that as it may, we are convinced that non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioners for admission to Bachelor of Engineering Course only on the ground that they have passed 10+2 examination conducted by the Council is liable to be quashed on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of the petitioners fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India because the Council is a creature of statute and its examinations stand recognised by the Government of India.
14. We are further of the view that the action of the University to include the examination conducted by the Council in the list of non-recognised examination published with the prospectus is totally arbitrary and unjustified. In our opinion, the University cannot ignore the decision taken by the Government of India and the directive issued by the State Government and insist on treating the examination conducted by the Council as unrecognised simply because the Haryana Board had, at one time de-recognised the said examination.
15. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for admission to Bachelor of Engineer Course according to their merit and admit them against the available vacant seats. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of certified copy of this order.
Sd/- Nirmal Singh, J.