TAJUNNISSA Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners in all these writ petitions are students of b.ed. Degree course of sanjay gandhi college of education, Bangalore. They have completed one year degree course in b.ed, having been admitted in July 1988 by the said college. It is also stated that they have undergone one year course with practical experience in teaching and are eligible in all respects to appear for final examination of b.ed. Course. By an order dated 23-3-1989 the respondent rejected the applications for approval of admission of 29 students for various reasons. These petitioners are also belonging to the category of rejected students. Hence, the petitioners are aggrieved.

(2.) the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that if the policy of the government is to allow students belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes securing 40% marks to be admitted, there is no reason how such a discrimination could be made in respect of the petitioners so long as the seats earmarked for reserved category are not filled up by them. It is contended that the respondent university has made hostile discrimination insofar as the petitioners are concerned and that such a discrimination infracts regulation 2 of the regulations for the b.ed. Degree course. It is further contended that, according to the said regulation 2 insofar as candidates belonging to the service are concerned, the eligibility is lowered upto 35% marks which, according to the learned counsel, is an impermissible classification. It is also contended that, reading regulation 1 along with regulation 2, the only possible conclusion that could be reached is that the relaxation of marks is in respect of candidates belonging to the unreserved category from 45% to 40% and, if any of the reserved seats are not filled due to non-availability of eligible candidates, the same may be filled by other eligible candidates from the unreserved category.

(3.) the stance taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is contradicted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Bangalore university firstly on factual basis and secondly on an interpretation of regulation 2. In the factual analysis, it is submitted that petitioners 1 to 5 have secured 41.5%, 39.25%, 43.78%, 40.78% and 40.25% marks respectively in the qualifying final year degree examinations and, therefore, the petitioners do not possess the minimum percentage of 45% marks which is mandatory under the regulations governing the b.ed. Degree course with the added disability that none of the petitioners belongs to either scheduled castes or scheduled tribes nor even to the backward classes and, therefore, are not entitled for any relaxation of the minimum of 45% marks in the qualifying examination. While interpreting regulation 2 read with regulation 1, it was submitted that the claim of the petitioners that they are entitled to relaxation of minimum percentage of marks from 45 to 40 as in the case of scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or backward classes and in-service teachers, is wholly untenable because such a concession is extended in consonance with Article 15(2) of the Constitution of India and there is no such nexus insofar as the petitioners are concerned. It is urged that the petitioners had to be repelled as candidates not approved for admission directing the college to discharge them from the course purely on the basis of ineligibility of the petitioners. Additionally, it is also pleaded that the writ petitions were filed after the examinations commenced on 4-4-1989 and, therefore, the inordinate delay also should be taken note of by the court in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution.