Patna High Court
Miss Asha Kumari vs The Rajendra Agricultural University ... on 2 May, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1997PAT102, AIR 1997 PATNA 102, (1996) 2 BLJ 747 (1996) 2 PAT LJR 358, (1996) 2 PAT LJR 358
ORDER J.N. Dubey, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit her in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) Course 1995-97 session in the Rajendra Agricultural University, Bihar, Pusa (for short 'the University').
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 12-8-1995 respondents invited applications in the prescribed form for admission in Post-Graduate courses of the University in different disciplines indicating choice of three subjects. Along with the prescribed form the candidates were also provided with a Prospectus containing criteria for admission to the various Post-Graduate Courses. The petitioner who possesses B.Sc. (Honours) degree in Chemistry applied for admission in M.Sc. (Biochemistry). On'7-12-1995 the respondents published a list of candidates, who were admitted in M.Sc. (Biochemistry), which did not contain the name of the petitioner. According to the petitioner she was legally entitled for admission in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) but was wrongly refused admission and hence this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. The Prospectus for Post-Graduate admission supplied to the petitioner along with the application form has been filed as Annexure-3 with this writ petition. Clause (VI) of the Prospectus provides that a candidate for admission in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) should possess B.Sc. (Hons) degree in Chemistry or Botany or Zoology with Botany, Zoology and Chemistry combination, or B.Sc, (Ag.) or B.V.Sc. and A.H. or B.Sc.(H.-Sc.). It further provided that students admitted from B.Sc. (Ag.) be awarded M.Sc. (Ag.), students admitted from B.V.Sc. and A.H. stream shall be awarded M.V.Sc., students admitted from B.Sc. stream shall be awarded M.Sc. degree and students admitted from Home Science stream shall be awarded M.Sc. Home Science degree in Biochemistry. Clause (XI) of the Prospectus gives the number of seats available in various Post-Graduate courses. Number of seats in M.Sc. Biochemistry was four, out of which one seat was to be filled up from the Graduates of any discipline, while two seats were reserved for Graduates in Home Science and one for in-service candidate.
5. The Bihar Government vide Memo No. 155, dated 14th December, 1993 has introduced reservation in professional educational institutions, which was subsequently also extended to the University vide Memo No. 163, dated 28th December, 1993, according to which 50% seats were reserved for the various communities mentioned therein. It was further provided that in case of nonavailability of the candidates from a particular category of reserved community, the seats so available will pass on to the next category of reserved community.
6. In M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course out of four seats, two were to be filled up from the category of reserved community mentioned in the memo, one earmarked for Graduate in any discipline and one out of the two earmarked for Home Science Graduate in Clause (xi) of the Prospectus. Remaining two viz. one of Home Science Graduate and one in-service candidate were to be filled up from the general candidate. The University has made only two admissions in M.Sc. (Biochemistry), one against the seat earmarked for Graduate in any discipline and the other earmarked for general Home Science Graduate, leaving two seats vacant, one earmarked for Home Science Graduate and other for in-service candidate. The grievance of the petitioner, who is a woman of other backward caste category, is that on one hand two seats in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) are admittedly lying vacant, on the other hand she has been wrongly denied admission. According to her she is entitled to be considered for admission against the general seat as well as against the reserved seats, for both category -- other backward caste and other backward caste (woman). The seat was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate and in absence of such candidate, the candidate of next reserved community is to be offered the same. No scheduled caste candidate or candidate belonging to most backward caste is available and, therefore, it should be offered to her, both for her belonging to other backward caste and other backward caste (woman). It is further claimed that in any case the University has no justification in keeping two seats vacant while the candidates possessing requisite qualification for admission in M.Sc. (Biochemistry), including the petitioner, are available.
7. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the University on the ground that in view of the fact that she does not possess B.Sc. (Home Science) degree and is not a in-service candidate, she can neither be accommodated against the reserved seat earmarked for Home Science Graduate nor the seat earmarked for in-service candidate. It is also half heartedly claimed that carriculum of M.Sc. (Biochemistry) is different for different stream and, therefore, also the petitioner cannot be legally admitted against the seat of Home Science Stream.
8. This case is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6783 of 1994 (Raj Kumar v. Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa) decided on 5th September, 1994 in which it was held that University was not legally justified in keeping the seats vacant while several duly qualified candidates were available for admission.
9. I find absolutely no justification for the University for keeping the two seats vacant while the qualified candidates are available for admission. The claim of the University that in view of the fact that the petitioner is neither a Home Science Graduate nor an in-service candidate and, therefore, she cannot be accommodated either against the seat earmarked for Home Science Stream or for in-service candidate, is wholly untenable. The purpose of earmarking the seats for different streams and reserving the same for different communities is to grant protection to the candidates belonging to different streams and communities and, therefore, so long the candidates belonging to those streams and communities are available the same have to be offered to them. But by no stretch of imagination it could be claimed that even if the candidates of those streams and communities are not available, the other qualified candidates are not entitled for admission against them. The admission in an educational institution cannot be equated with the appointment in a particular service. One may be justified in not offering the post reserved for a particular category of candidates to other category of candidates for the reason that the post can be carried forward, but there cannot be any justification for not offering the seat vacant in an educational institution to the candidates of other categories if the candidates of the category, for which they are reserved, are not available inasmuch as the seats in an educational institution cannot be carried forward. The refusal of the University to admit the petitioner against the vacant seats is not only against her interest but is also against the national interest. A poor country, like ours, which cannot afford even to provide basic education to its citizen, cannot certainly afford the luxury of keeping the seats in an educational institution vacant when qualified candidates for admission are available. When the University had invited applications for admission against four seats of M.Sc. (Biochemistry) is must be well equipped to teach four candidates. The denial of admission to the petitioner would mean that the University which is well equipped to teach four candidates will be teaching only two candidates. In other words, the University will have to incur the expenditure for teaching four candidates, while teaching only two candidates. Thus the cost of teaching M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course per student will be double. It will be something like running a factory at half of its capacity and in the process causing avoidable loss to the nation.
10. The right of education may not be a fundamental right or an enforceable legal right but at the same time in view of Article 41 of the Constitution it cannot be reasonably claimed that the State is not under any obligation to impart education to its citizen. In this context it will be relevant to refer to Article 41 of the Constitution which provides that the State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases of underserved want. Thus, it is clear that the State is under an obligation to make effective provision for securing to its citizen the right of education subject to its economic capacity. In this view of the matter, when the University is well equipped to teach four students in M.Sc. (Biochemistry) it is not justified in keeping two seats vacant although qualified candidates are available for admission. Otherwise also, no civilised society or democratic Government can afford to say that even if it is within its capacity to provide education to its citizen it is not under any obligation to do so. In other words the only excuse for not providing education to its citizen can be the economic reason and not the whims of the person in authority at a particular time.
11. The claim of the University that the curriculum of M.Sc. (Biochemistry) for different stream is different, is proved to be false from its own prospectus, which provides that the students from all the streams are eligible to apply for admission to M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course. It has been specifically claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition that there is common curriculum for M.Sc. (Biochemistry) for the candidates of all the streams, which has been denied in the. counter-affidavit merely by saying that the curriculum is different without specifying the, alleged difference. On the other hand, the petitioner has reasserted in para 3 of the rejoinder affidavit that there is common curriculum for M.Sc. (Biochemistry) for the students of all the streams. Paragraph 3 of the rejoinder affidavit which has not been controverted runs as under : --
"That the statements made in paragraphs 4 to 14 of the counter-affidavit are misleading and incorrect. M. Sc. Biochemistry Programme is a consolidated programme having a common syllabus though the Scholars admitted in this course come from different streams as mentioned in the Prospectus. The only difference on account of different disciplines is that after passing the final examination relating to common syllabus the name of the particular subject will be indicated in the Degree i.e. a Veterinary graduate will get M.V.Sc. degree, an agriculture graduate will get M.Sc. (Agr.) degpee, a Home Science graduate will get M.Sc. (H.Sc.) degree, an honours graduate will get M.Sc. degree and in all the aforesaid degree Biochemistry is suffixed. Thus the course for students coming from different streams is one and only one and they attend together the same classes. Thus there is no separate P.O. Programme like M.Sc. (Home Science). It is also Wrong to say that late admission beyond 15 days is not permissible. On respondents own showing one Dharmendra Kumar Singh ordered to be admitted by the Board of Management at its meeting "dated 30-12-95 and consequent office order was issued by the Registrar sometime in January, 1996 much beyond ,14-12-95. Even in past the respondents have admitted much after commencement of the course e.g. one Sri Ashok Kumar Singh was admitted, in Ph.D. Programme in second semester i.e. after 1st Semester of six months and that too against a seat earmarked for in-service candidate and undeniably the in-service seat is still vacant apart from one seat earmarked for Home Science."
12. Learned counsel for the University then contended that in view of the fact that there are more meritorious students available the petitioner is not entitled for admission, I find no substance in this argument of the learned counsel in view of the ' admitted position that the petitioner is the only candidate belonging to the reserved category and is, therefore, entitled for admission in preference to the candidates of general category. Moreover, no other candidate has approached this Court against the denial of admission by the University which can be another reason for giving preference to the petitioner over other candidates. In the end, learned counsel for the respondents contend-
ed that in view of the fact that classes had begun long ago this Court will not be justified in directing the University--to admit the Petitioner. It is true that ordinarily an educational institution should not be compelled to grant admission to a candidate in the mid-session but in this particular case where the petitioner has approached this Court immediately on refusal of the University to grant her admission and the hearing of the petition was repeatedly adjourned to enable the University to decide the matter at its end, it is not open for the University to raise this objection moreso when even in the past the University had been granting admission to the students long after beginning of the classes. It will be relevant to point out here that in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) when the University approached this Court for modification of the order on the ground that in view of the fact that the classes has started long ago even if the student was admitted it would not be possible for him to complete 90% required attendance of the Semester period, which was rejected by this Court with the observation that even if it was not possible for the student to complete the attendance the same should be relaxed by the Vice-Chancellor as a special case. The view taken by the Division Bench in rejecting the application of the University for modifying the order, will also hold good for the petitioner. In other words, once a similar plea was rejected by a Division Bench in the writ petition of Raj Kumar (supra) the same cannot be a ground for refusing the relief to the petitioner for no fault on her part.
13. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to admit the petitioner forthwith to the M.Sc. (Biochemistry) course 1995-97. The petitioner will be entitled for Rs. 2,000/- as cost.