Madhya Pradesh High Court
Swavittiya Ashaskiya Mahavidyalaya ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2017
Writ Petition No.3194/2017 (Swavittiya Ashaskya Mahavidyalaya Vikas Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and others ) 1 27.6.2017
Mr. Prabodh Tiwari appeared for the Petitioners as their representative as the members of Bar are abstaining from Court work in terms of the resolution of the High Court Bar Association dated 27.6.2017.
The petitioner is a registered society of private college imparting B.Ed. Course. The grievance of the petitioner is that many seats remain unfilled every year for the reason that central counselling alloting students the college is not provided wide publicity.
The challenge in the present petition is a condition incorporated vide amendment on 7 th June, 2010 in the Admission Rules framed in view of section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 contemplates that all seats remaining vacant after second round of counselling shall be filled up on the basis of centralized counselling. The relevant clause reads as under:
"(1) Those institutions, which have got permission to fill up to 5% seats by Non-
resident Indian candidates only and 10% institutional preference seats by Appropriate Authority and Competent Authority respectively, shall fill these seats before the start of Centralised counselling as per the procedure and schedule notified by the Competent Authority.
(2) If seats remains vacant even after two Writ Petition No.3194/2017 (Swavittiya Ashaskya Mahavidyalaya Vikas Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and others ) 2 rounds of counselling on the basis of merit of common entrance test, then remaining seats shall be filled through centralized counselling on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination, if seats remain vacant even after this round then remaining seats shall be filled by college authorities in the presence of representative of competent authority, according to the procedure notified by the competent authority."
The grievance of the petitioner is that Admission Rules, 2008 as notified on 15.4.2008 in Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007 contemplates that after the centralized counselling, the remaining seats shall be filled up on the basis of marks obtained in qualifying examination. The relevant clause 8 reads as under:
"8. For remaining vacant seats the sequence of admission shall be as under - (1) Firstly 15% seats shall be filled by management of the respective institutions by NRI candidates only if they are available. If sufficient number of NRI candidates are not available then remaining vacant seats shall be merged into general pool. Seats in general pool shall be filled on the basis of merit of state level common entrance test conducted by Madhya Pradesh Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal or any other agency authorized by the State Government for this purpose.
(2) Secondly remaining seats shall be filled on the basis of merit of National level seat as decided by the State Government.
(3) Thirdly remaining seats shall be filled Writ Petition No.3194/2017 (Swavittiya Ashaskya Mahavidyalaya Vikas Sangh Vs. State of M.P. and others ) 3 on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying examination."
The sub-clause (1) and (2) which have been substituted on 7.6.2010, whereas sub-clause (3) and (4) has been omitted.
We do not find any merit in the arguments raised, as such amendment is in tune with an order dated 22.7.2011 passed by the Supreme Court in College of Professional Education and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No.5914/2011, which enjoins a duty upon the State to ensure admissions only through counselling after holding State Level Entrance Examination against all the seats sanctioned in self-financing institutions running B.Ed. Course. Therefore, the guidelines issued by the State earlier in point of time than the judgment, for admission to B.Ed., M.Ed., B.P.Ed., M.P.Ed. course is in tune with the order of the Supreme Court and does not wants any interference.
Therefore, such clause cannot be said to be an illegal or arbitrary warranting interference in the writ petition.
In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.
(Hemant Gupta) (Sanjay Yadav)
Chief Justice Judge
pawar/-