Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Discussion and Conclusion

23. To appreciate the challenge as raised by the petitioner, it would be appropriate to extract Rule 4(a) which reads as under:-

"4. PRIORITY IN ADMISSION For the seats earmarked for candidates of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, the candidates will be considered for admission in the following order of priority;

a) First priority:

Applicants whose parents/guardians (in case Father and Mother are not alive) are Domicile of the UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu as the case may be and the applicant has studied continuously from Class 8th to 12th in any of the recognized schools of that UT.

The students will have to produce a certificate for non-availability of Class XI and XII from the Assistant Director of Education of the respective district in U.T of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu".

b) Second priority:

If the seats remain vacant after allotment of seats to candidates belonging to the first priority, they will be offered to candidates whose parents/guardian (in case Father and Mother are not alive) are Domicile of UTs of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu as the case may be and candidate has studied in any recognized educational institution anywhere in the country or abroad.

27. The first and foremost reason being that the exclusion of the VIII Standard from the category of first preference as contained in Rule 4(a) would not in any manner alter and/or change the object which is sought to be achieved by the rule namely to have a candidate who is domicile of the Union Territory and who has sufficiently studied in such higher classes within the Union Territory. This more so, when the academic requirements in no manner stand diluted when the student has studied the VIII Standard within the same Board. In the present case the petitioner not only studied the IX, X, XI and XII from the school affiliated to the Gujarat Board situated in the Union Territory, but also has studied the VIII Standard from the very same Board, however not within the Union Territory. Would this bring about any primal difference between such similarly placed candidates, on the academic front ?

7. U.T. of Chandigarh 10th to 12th No further priority lists

8. U.T. of Andaman Nicobar 11th and 12th Islands No further priority lists

30. In our opinion when Rule 4(a) includes that a candidate should have studied VIII Standard from the Union Territory, in a given case with all the other basic requirements being fulfilled, merely because a candidate has not studied the VIII Standard from the Union Territory, but who has otherwise studied the IX, X, XI and XII daman.doc Standards, from the Union Territory to remain disqualified in the First Priority, would certainly bring about a discrimination between similarly placed candidates. Added to this is a concern when such candidate is more meritorious in the NEET score than those who fulfill the VIII Standard to the XII Standard criteria. Such candidate would lose a valuable seat, on account of such unreasonable condition. Thus in our opinion inclusion of the VIII standard in the 'First Preference' as prescribed under Rule 4(a) is required to be read and applied in a manner, that it would prevent arbitrariness and illegality, so as to bring about more reasonableness than unreasonableness. Candidates who are similarly situated do not suffer patent discrimination in admission to such an important course.