Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shubham Goyal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 October, 2020
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P.No.15290/2020
Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others
Gwalior, Dated:-21.10.2020
Per Vishal Mishra, J:-
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vishal Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.
Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/Jiwaji University.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
(1) The present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the illegal arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the respondents no.1 and 2, thereby they have adopted double standard in the matter of admission of students in First year of LL.B. (3 YDC) in S.M.S. P.G. College, Shivpuri owing to which the petitioner has been illegally deprived of taking admission in the aforesaid course.
(2) It is argued that petitioner is a bonafide resident of Adarsh Nagar Colony, Shivpuri and has passed B.A. First year examination in the year 2018 and second year examination in the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others year 2019 as a regular student. He has participated in B.A. Final year examination conducted from March, 2020 to September, 2020. The examination were completed on 21.9.2020 and the result thereof is awaited and has not been declared till date by the respondent no.3-Jiwaji University. Meanwhile, the respondent no.2 has started the process of admission in the month of August, 2020 for First year of LL.B. (3 YDC) Course for total 120 seats and for the purpose of which registration started from 14 th August, 2020. The petitioner submitted his registration form in the aforesaid admission process on 14.8.2020 for taking provisional admission in terms of Rule 8.1.1 of the admission policy and rules. It is submitted that after scrutiny of registration forms the respondent no.2 has issued the first list of 81 selected candidates, however, only 66 candidates have taken admission in pursuance to the list and the remaining seats were lying vacant. It is submitted that the respondents have issued the list including both types of candidates i.e. Graduation Final year Exam Pass-out candidates and the candidates whose result have not been declared. He has filed the copy of the list and has pointed out that in the entire list, 28 candidates whose result have not been declared have been given 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others admission. It is argued that the last admission was given to the candidate of general category, who has obtained 63.83 marks. Petitioner's aggregated marks percentage for First year and Second year in Graduation course was 61.5 and in terms of the policy of admission clause 8.1.1 clearly says that in case of candidates whose results have not been declared then the candidates are entitled for taking provisional admission taking into consideration the aggregate of marks of both the years. It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid clause of the policy of admission issued by the State Government, the petitioner is entitled to be granted provisional admission in the respondent no.2-College. It is submitted that even the candidates having lesser percentile than that of petitioner from general category are being given admissions. He has drawn attention of this Court to clause 8 and has argued that there is a specific provision for providing provisional admission to those candidates whose results have not been declared on the basis of the aggregate of first year and second year. The candidates have further required to submit a declaration to the effect that their provisional admission will be subject to final outcome of the results and subsequent action will be taken on the basis of the percentage 4 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others obtained in the final year examination results and granting provisional admission will not entitle them to claim any equity in their favour. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to submit such an undertaking before the respondent no.2, but as far as non- consideration of the case of the petitioner is concerned the action on the part of the respondent no.2 is wholly discriminatory as lesser meritorious candidates have been given admission. It is submitted that looking to the reply filed on behalf of the State Government six seats are still lying vacant as pointed out by them in their return, therefore, the petitioner's case be directed to be considered for grant of provisional admission on the aforesaid vacant seats. (3) The State Government by filing a reply has denied all the contentions of the petitioner and has contended that the admission in First year of LL.B (3 YDC) is required to be strictly granted in terms of Rule 5.1 (Kha) which deals with qualifying examinations. It is contended that in terms of Rule 5.1 (Kha) there is a clear stipulation that only those candidates are required to take admission who have passed out in their examinations in Third year Graduation. Similarly, the clause 5.2 of admission Rules are also relevant which clearly provides that the Rules framed by the Bar 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others Council of India for admission in LL.B. are applicable in the aforesaid cases. He has further drawn attention of this Court to the instructions issued by the State Government which are filed as Annexure R/2, which clearly goes to show that initially in the general counseling common list was required to be prepared at the level of the Commissioner, Higher Education and in the present case the name of 82 students were included in the first round of counseling in the merit list out of which 66 students have took admission in the LL.B. Course in the respondent no.2-College. There are total 120 sanctioned seats in First year of LL.B. (3 YDC) course according to the Bar Council of India and after granting admission to 66 students, 54 seats remained to be filled up which were required to be filled up by the CLC online procedure. The first online admission procedure of CLC was conducted between 17th September, 2020 to 26th September, 2020 and the common merit list was prepared, according to which 12 students were granted admission in first CLC online counseling round. The second round of counseling was required to be conducted and during that period total 36 students have taken admission in the College. Accordingly, out of total 120 sanctioned seats 114 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others students have been admitted in the college and only 6 seats are lying vacant. The vacant seats are required to be filled up in accordance with Rule 13.1 of the Rules, which have clearly laid down the sequence for consideration of candidates. First of all the outride candidates are required to be considered, second the candidates of domicile of Madhya Pradesh according to the percentile, third outside candidates from Madhya Pradesh and under the fourth category the candidates whose results are still withheld are required to be considered. In the case of the petitioner he fall under the category number four, therefore, in terms of the aforesaid Rule 13.1 the subsequent action will be taken to fill up the remaining vacant seats. Petitioner cannot claim any right over the remaining six seats as they are required to be filled up in accordance with Rule 13.1. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
(4) By filing a rejoinder to the writ petition the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that some of the candidates who have even secured less percentile than that of the petitioner have been provided admission. Candidate at S.No.26 and 37 of the admission list issued on 7.10.2010 and 8.10.2020 are having 7 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others percentile 57.21 and 53.85, whereas in terms of Rule 8.1 of the admission rules the petitioner has possessed 61.5 in aggregate percentile for provisional admission. Therefore, the percentile of the petitioner is on better footing. It is not the fault of the petitioner that his examination of final year has not been declared and in such circumstances there is a specific provision for providing provisional admission. Therefore, the petitioner may be considered for admission from the remaining 6 vacant seats. It is contended that the petitioner is ready to submit an undertaking in terms of clause 8.1.2 of the Rules of admission which are filed as Annexure P/2. In such circumstances he has prayed that the petition be allowed and the respondent no.2 be directed to grant provisional admission to the petitioner subject to petitioner furnishing an undertaking to the aforesaid effect.
(5) Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3-University submits that in the entire petition no relief is being claimed against the respondent no.3, therefore, the main grievance is against the respondent no.1 and 2 and he is only a formal party to the petition, as the result is required to be declared by him.
8
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others (6) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(7) From the perusal of the record it is seen that there is no dispute with respect to the fact that the petitioner has passed out B.A. First year and Second year as a regular student. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the petitioner has appeared in the B.A. Third year Examination which was conducted by respondent no.2 from March, 2020 to September, 2020 and the examination were over on 21.9.2020. The result of the petitioner is still not declared by the respondent no.3-Jiwaji University. The Rules for taking admission in LLB. (3 YDC) course is required to be seen. Rule 8 deals with admission which reads as under:
"8- izkof/kd izos'k dh ik=rk% 8-1 Lukrd izFke o"kZ vkSj LukrdksRrj izFke lsesLVj esa izkof/kd izos'k dh ik=rk j[kus okys vkosndksa dks izos'k ds fy;s fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk rd izkof/kd izos'k ysuk vfuok;Z gSA 8-1-1 LukrdksRrj d{kkvksa esa izos'k gsrq vgZdkjh Lukrd vafre o"kZ ds ijh{kk ifj.kke ?kksf"kr u gksus dh fLFkfr esa izkof/kd izos'k gsrq izFke ,oa f}rh; o"kZ ds izkIrkadksa dk izfr'kr vkWuykbu iath;u ds le; ntkZ djuk gksxkA xq.kkuqdze dk fu/kkZj.k izkof/kd izos'k gsrq ntZ izkIrkadksa ds vk/kkj ij gh gksxkA xq.kkuqdze dk fu/kkZj.k izkof/kd izos'k gsrq ntZ izkIrkadksa 9 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others ds vk/kkj ij gh gksxkA Lukrd vafre o"kZ esa iwjd izkIr fo|kFkhZ LukrdksRrj izFke lsesLVj esa izkof/kd izos'k ds fy;s ik= gksaxsA egkfo|ky; LukrdksRrj izFke lsesLVj esa izkof/kd izosf'kr fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds izFke lsesLVj esa fo'ofo|ky; ds ijh{kk QkeZ Hkjus ls iwoZ ;g lqfuf'pr djsaxs ds izkof/kd izosf'kr fo| kFkhZ }kjk fu;ekuqlkj vgZdkjh ijh{kk iw.kZ :i ls mRrh.kZ dj yh gSA vgZdkjh dh ijh{kk ¼Lukrd ikB~;dze½ esa fdlh Hkh Lrj ij iwjd ,-Vh-ds-Vh- izkIr Nk= LukrdksRrj izFke lsesLVj ds ijh{kk QkeZ Hkjus gsrq ik= ugha gksaxsA 8-1-2 mijksDr izos'kkFkhZ LukrdksRrj ikB~;dze esa lhV vkoafVr gksus ij vius nkf;Ro ij ,d opu i= ds lkFk izos'k ysaxs ftlesa ;g mYys[k gksxk fd vxj "k"Be lsesLVj@r`rh; o"kZ ds ijh{kk ifj.kke esa xq.kkuqdze ifjorZu vFkok fo|kFkhZ vuqRrh.kZ gksrk gS ftlds dkj.k izkof/kd izosf'kr fo|kFkhZ fu;fer izos'k ls oafpr gks tkrk gS rks ;g mldh ftEesnkjh gksxhA izkof/kd izos'k ds mijkUr vafre ijh{kk ifj.kke ifjofrZr gksus dh fLFkfr esa izosf'kr fo|kFkhZ dks egkfo|ky; cnyus dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxkA"
(8) From the perusal of the Rule 8.1.1. it is seen that the candidates whose final year result have not been declared are required to take admission on provisional basis taking into consideration the aggregate of their First year and Second year examinations. Subsequent proviso is relevant which cast a responsibility over the candidate as well as institution to take an 10 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others affidavit/undertaking from the candidate to the effect that provisional admission will be subject to final outcome of the result. and will not create any right in favour of the candidate. Bare reading of the aforesaid provisions regarding admission clearly goes to show that there is a specific provision made for admission of those students whose results have not been declared for no fault of their own. In the present case the respondent no.3-University has not declared the result of the petitioner making him entitled for taking admission on provisional basis. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that 28 students of the category whose results have not been declared have been taken into consideration by the respondent no.2 and have been granted admissions. By way of rejoinder he has pointed out two such students whose names figured at S.No.37 in unreserved category and S.No.26 in unreserved category for the list issued for admission on 7.10.2020 and 8.10.2020. Both the students are also having their percentile less than that of the petitioner's aggregate percentile. The petitioner's aggregate percentile is 61.5% on the basis of the percentage of First year and Second year B.A. Course, whereas the students who have been granted admission are having 57.21 and 11 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others 53.85 percentage which are admittedly less than the aggregate percentile of the petitioner.
(9) By filing a reply to the petition, the respondent no.2 has pointed out that Rule 5.1 (Kha) is relevant rules which says that only passed out candidates are required to take admission. Subsequently, in case of awaited candidates the subsequent Rules issued by the State Government are required to be followed for filling up the remaining seats which are lying vacant after following the entire procedure and Rule 13.1 is relevant which clearly says that in such cases like that of the petitioner the admission is to be granted by the CLC round in the sequence as pointed out in Rule 13.1, which is mentioned in para 8 of the return which says that :
"That, the admission for CLC round are required to be made based upon the following sequence:
"v- loZizFke rule 13.1 ds vuqlkj Outride Candidates c- e/;izns'k ds ewy fuoklh mRRkh.kZ vkosnd izfr'kr okj l- e/;izns'k ds ckgj ds mRrh.kZ vkosnd izfr'kr okj n- vkosnd ftuds ijh{kk ifj.kke ?kksf"kr ugha gq, gS vFkok iwjd gSA"
(10) It is pointed out that only on the basis of the aforesaid Rule 13.1 the remaining six seats will be filled up. It is seen from the Rule 13.1 that Rule 13 is also required to be seen. Rule 13 deals 12 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others with granting benefit to those students who are outstanding, meaning thereby that they are having certain additional qualifications as they are having NCC A certificate or NSS A certificate or some certificate in Sports category as provided under Rule 13. It is submitted that certain percentage of additional marks is to be provided to them as per Rule 13 and in terms of the aforesaid Rule the petitioner's case falls under the fourth category which clearly says that after consideration of all the aforesaid candidates the candidates whose results are not declared will be taken into consideration. The case of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with the aforesaid Rules. From the Rule 8 which deals with the admission, it is clear that the admissions are strictly required to be granted in terms of the merit list. It was further pointed out that there is a provision for granting provisional admission for candidates whose results are not declared and a consolidated merit list is required to be prepared. The candidates who are required to be granted additional benefits in terms of Rule 13 are required to be included in the consolidated merit list which is to be prepared after granting them the benefit of additional marks in terms of Rule 13 according to their entitlement. The petitioner's 13 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others case is falling under the Rule 8.1.1. which clearly stipulates for granting of provisional admission in terms of non-declaration of results. Thus, there is no answer given by the respondent to the specific averment made by the petitioner with respect to granting admission to 28 students like the petitioner, whose results are also awaited. In such circumstances, there is clear discrimination is being done with the petitioner. However, as pointed out by the respondents that six seats are lying vacant in the respondent no.2- institution and the percentile of the petitioner is over and above certain candidates who have been given admission, therefore, in such circumstances the petitioner's case is directed to be considered by the respondent no.2 for grant of provisional admission in terms of clause 8.1.1 of the admission Rules. The petitioner is also required to submit an undertaking as required under Rule 8.1.1 and 8.1.2. Merely granting a provisional admission to the petitioner in the respondent no.2-institute will not create any right in favour of the petitioner. The same is always be subject to final outcome of the result of the Third year B.A. Course examination. (11) The aforesaid situation has arisen owing to the fact that the respondent no.3-University has not declared the result of Third year 14 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P.No.15290/2020 Shubham Goyal Vs. State of M.P. And others Examination of B.A. Course. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of this case, this Court also deems it appropriate to direct the respondent no.3 to take effective steps and expedite the proceedings for declaration of withheld results of the students of Third year B.A. Course to avoid such complications and unnecessary litigation before this Court.
(12) With the aforesaid observation, this petition is allowed and disposed of.
E-Copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.
(S.A. Dharmadhikari) (Vishal Mishra)
Judge Judge
Pawar*
ASHISH PAWAR
2020.10.22
18:15:49 +05'30'