PARESHKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two groups of students (i) those who passed their Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in October 1981 and April 1982 (hereinafter called 'the first batch') and (ii) those who passed their Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in the preceding years (hereinafter called 'the second batch') are locked in combat in this group of petitions which raise the question of eligibility of the second batch for admission to the First Semester of the B. E. Degree course in certain colleges run by or under the control of the State Government. The Rules for Admission to the First Semester of the B. E. Degree course are framed by the State Government for each academic year. Admission to Engineering Colleges run by the State Government as well as certain other institutions is governed and regulated by the Rules framed in that behalf by the State Government from year to year. Accordingly, in supersession of existing rules, the Government of Gujarat in the Education Department by their Resolution dated 31st May, 1982 framed Rales for Admission to the four colleges mentioned therein for the academic year 1982-83. The petitioners contend that on a correct reading of the said Rules, only students belonging to the first batch are qualified and eligible few admission to the said colleges and those belonging to the second batch are not legally entitled to admission. They contend that if the admission rules are so read as to qualify students belonging to the second batch for admission, it would result to avoidable hardship and heart-burning to the students belonging to the first batch. On behalf of the students belonging to the first batch it was, therefore, contended that the Court should endeavour to avoid an interpretation which would be manifestly unjust and unreasonable to the said batch of students eminently suited for admission to the Engineering course by, if necessary, reading down the rules so as to confine admission to the first batch only. It was further said that if the Court is disinclined to place the interpretation canvassed on behalf of the students belonging to the first batch and is inclined to think that on a strict grammatical construction of the rules even students belonging to the second batch are eligible for admission, the relevant admission rule would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as in that case, unequals would be treated as equals. A fervent plea was, therefore, made by the learned counsel representing the student's belonging to the first batch that in the larger interest of the student community, the Court should endeavour to interpret the rules in a manner so that they are not ultimately required to be struck down on the ground that they violate the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, On the other hand, on behalf of the students belonging to the second batch it was contended that since the last several years the Rules have been so interpreted by the concerned authorities including the Government as to grant admission to the students belonging to the second batch also and at no point of time during these years was any dispute raised so far as their eligibility for admission is concerned. They further contend that on a plain reading of the Rules it is evident that students belonging to the second batch are entitled to seek admission to the First Semester of the B. E. Degree course in the four colleges mentioned in the rules and there is no warrant for holding that only the students belonging to the first batch are eligible for admission. They further contend that equally there is no warrant for reading down the rules so as to restrict admission to the first batch of students only. According to them if the second batch of students is held to be ineligible for admission by reading down the rules, it it bound to create hardship and heart-burning to the students belonging to the second batch. In other words, according to them, some hardship and/or heart-burning is bound to be caused to students who fail to secure admission under the Rules, but that cannot be avoided became it is the result of the application of the principle of demand and supply, the total number of seats available being far less than the total number of students seeking admission to the said course. It was lastly contended on behalf of the students belonging to the second batch that if the Court comes to the conclusion that they are eligible for admission, equals will be treated alike and that would in fact be in conformity with the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution; but, if the view canvassed on behalf of the students belonging to the first batch is accepted, it may result in the rule being struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as held in Mukul v. Dean, Goa Medical College, Panaji, AIR 1981 Goa 39. These are broadly the contentions canvassed on behalf of either batch in this group of petitions and since identical question of law and fact arise, we proceed to dispose of all these petitions by this common judgment.

(2.) x x x

(3.) It is also necessary to take notice of one fact which has some relevance on the question of the complexion of the controversy before this Court. When the lead matter, Special Civil Application No. 2823 of 1982, was initially instituted, it was filed by only one petitioner through his father and legal guardian challenging the decision of the concerned authorities to grant admission to students belonging to the second batch also. As stated earlier, at that point of time the vires of the admission rules was not challenged. The contention which was then urged in the petition was that on a true interpretation of the admission rules admission to the Engineering Colleges could only be granted to students (i) who had appeared in the examination held in March-April-May 1982 (the last qualifying examination) and (ii) who had obtained 55 per cent marks in the science subjects at the said examination. In other words, as the petition then stood, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that students who had passed the 12th Standard Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in October 1981 were not eligible for admission. However, at a subsequent stage when it was realised that the students who bad passed the aforesaid Examination in October 1981 were likely to oppose the petition, certain amendments were made in the petition so as to group the students who bad passed the October 1981 examination with those who bad passed the examination held in April 1982. That is hew the first batch now consists of students who passed the 12th Standard Higher Secondary Certificate Examination held in October 1981 and April 1982 and they have as a single batch trained their guns against students belonging to the second batch, that is, those who had passed the said examination prior to October 1981. We will point out at a later stage how this development has relevance so far as the challenge to the admission rules based on Article 14 of the Constitution is concerned.