Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Raj vs Kurukshetra University & Others on 27 April, 2011
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
C.W.P.No.22154 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.22154 of 2010
Date of decision : 27.4.2011
Baljit Raj
....Petitioner
Versus
Kurukshetra University & others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present : Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.A.S.Virk, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr.Balram Gupta, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Manik Bakshi, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr.Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
.....
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner prays that he be permitted to pursue the B.Ed. Course in which admission has been denied to him in the session 2010-11 on the ground that he does not have the minimum qualifying marks of 45% in the last qualifying examination. He pleads that he is 100% disabled on account of paraplegia of both the lower limbs. The fact indicating his disability to the extent of 100% is borne out from the certificate issued by the health authorities C.W.P.No.22154 of 2010 -2- attached as Annexure P-1. He is said to have passed his matriculation and 10+2 examination successfully in the years 1997 and 2000, respectively. Thereafter, he completed his graduation from Kurukshetra University by securing 41.2% marks in the year 2003. He further pleaded that he has a humble background and wishes to pursue his further studies in order to make himself self-reliant. He appeared in B.Ed. Entrance Examination in 2007-2008 but it was denied to him on the ground that he had secured 41.2% marks in graduation while the minimum eligibility marks for the course was 45% for all categories except SC and visually handicapped candidates for whom relaxation of 5% marks was there and for such categories after relaxation the eligibility criteria comes to 40% marks in graduation.
Since the petitioner was denied admission, he challenged the criteria laid down by the respondents by way of CWP No.3011 of 2008 on the ground that the petitioner who is 100% physically disabled was being made to compete with general category candidates while SC and persons with 100% visually handicapped were given the concession of 5%, the court directed that the petitioner shall file a representation before the State Government who would look into the disparity and take a decision in the matter. The directions of this Court are as below :-
"In view of the aforementioned facts, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner did not fulfill the requisite qualifications for admission in the course of B.Ed. And hence has rightly been denied. Apart from the above, the session of 2007-2008 for B.Ed is already over C.W.P.No.22154 of 2010 -3- and the next session has started and on this ground the petitioner is not entitled to be given any relief.
Since the petitioner is 100% disabled, therefore, he may file a representation to the State Government who will consider whether 100% disabled persons are entitled to any special relaxation as granted to the SC and totally blind candidates. In case any such representation is filed, the decision on the same be taken immediately."
The petitioner did so but since there was no response from the State, he filed a contempt petition bearing No.615 of 2010 wherein the respondents considered the claim of the petitioner for relaxation and vide order dated 2.8.2010 the contempt petition was disposed of granting the petitioner liberty to seek admission in the B.Ed. Course. The petition was disposed of by passing the following order :-
"Learned counsel for the parties admit that Government has now decided that 100% physical disabled person shall be entitled to relaxation for admission to B.Ed. course.
In view of the said fact, the present contempt petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek admission as per the revised instructions issued by Government in accordance with law."
The petitioner then approached the respondents and was called for counselling in which he participated. He deposited the requisite fee and also submitted the choice of college which was C.W.P.No.22154 of 2010 -4- required of a candidate. The respondents again rejected the case of the petitioner by saying that now the revised eligibility conditions have come into force in the year 2010-11 whereby the minimum qualifying marks in graduation have been set out as 50% with 5% relaxation to SC and 100% visually handicapped candidates and which qualification after relaxation comes to 45% and since the petitioner has merely 41.2% marks in the graduation he cannot be considered for the same. This is the cause of grievance of the petitioner.
Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed reply in response to the notice of motion issued by this Court and have referred to clause 3(2)
(a) which were the norms and standards prescribed for Bachelor of Education Programme by virtue of the regulations prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education which regulations are called 'National Council for Teacher Education Regulations, 2009'. The same are extracted here below :-
"Candidates with atleast 50% marks either in the Bachelor's Degree and/or in the Master's degree or in any other equivalent thereto are eligible for admission to the Programme."
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, who have contended before me on the lines of their grievance which have been set out in the foregoing paragraphs. The facts are not in dispute. The question remains that the petitioner was initially denied admission unfairly because of the stand of the respondents who had treated the disabled persons differently by not rationally prescribing the criteria for relaxation which was admissible to one category of physically C.W.P.No.22154 of 2010 -5- challenged persons but denied the same benefit to the persons with disabilities other than visual. The petitioner was thus doubly prejudiced when the respondents made a statement before this Court in contempt proceedings that the benefit would now be available to all the physically challenged persons and that the petitioner would be considered for the admission. This order was passed in the year 2010 while the regulations came into existence in 2009 and it was apparently to the knowledge of the respondents but was not brought to the notice of the Court. Be that as it may, the Court does not wish to enter into the domain of this controversy but suffice it to say that the petitioner, who was 100% disabled, was desirous of pursuing his studies and had academic record which cannot be considered to be below average considering his disability, I am of the opinion that his case has been severely prejudiced on account of the stand of the respondents right from the beginning. There is no dispute that now the eligibility conditions have been changed and for the session 2010- 2011 if the parameters are adopted, then the petitioner does not meet the prescribed norms. But considering the fact that he was initially unfairly denied the admission on account of an artificial and arbitrary classification, the petitioner not only lost two to three valuable years in pursuing his right to get admission but has also been setback by these orders in his effort to stand on his own feet in life and thus the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner be granted admission to the B.Ed. Course in the session beginning from 2011-12. Since the previous session is almost over, the respondents are directed to admit the petitioner to the B.Ed. Course without any precondition regarding C.W.P.No.22154 of 2010 -6- his eligibility on account of academic qualifications. This order shall, however, not be treated as a precedent as it has been passed keeping in view of the peculiar circumstances which have been detailed above.
April 27, 2011 (MAHESH GROVER)
JUDGE
dss