GANGA PRAEAD YADAV Vs. ALLAHABAD AGRICULTURE INSTITUTE NAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. Shashank Choudhary (respondent No. 5) in the writ petition has filed this review petition for recalling the judgment and order dated February 8, 1995 by which the writ petition was allowed with regard to second relief and-the admission granted to him was cancelled. Though by the order dated January 20, 1995 notice was directed to be issued asking him to show cause why his admission in B. Tech. Agriculture Engineering Part I Course be not cancelled, but he did not appear at the time of the hearing of the writ petition. Therefore we have heard the review application on merits.

(2.) THE prospectus of Allahabad Agriculture Institute (hereinafter referred to as the 'institute') for the academic session 1993-94 gave in detail the admission policy of the Institute. It provided that the applicants will be placed in two categories viz. (a) General Candidates ; and (b) Christian Candidates and a merit list will be prepared for each category based on the total marks scored by the candidate in the Entrance Test for the purpose of admission. It further provided that upto 50% seats in each course will be available to candidates of Christian community. It is not in dispute that the applicant Shashanfc Choudhary neither appeared in the Entrance Test nor he belongs to Christian community. In the counter-affidavit which was filed by the Institute in the writ petition, it was stated that the manage ment of the Institute had passed a resolution whereby 10% seats were reserved for wards of staff, employees, and benefactors of the Institute, in addition to the seats published in the prospectus, as promotional quota under the discretion of Allahabad Agriculture Institute Administration. THE resolution further provided that the students applying in promotional quota should not appear in Entrance Test. In the judgment and order, dated February 8, 1995 finally disposing of the writ petition, it was held that the aforesaid resolution of the management as well as any admission made under the promotional quota was unconstitutional and the same was accord ingly struck down and the admission of the applicant Shashank Choudhary was consequently cancelled.

(3.) SHRI Janardan Sahai has next submitted that the applicant Shashank Choudhary was admitted in B. Tech. Agriculture-Engineering Part I Course in the academic session 1993-94, in November 1, 1993 and he has passed Part I Examination securing first position and having studied for more than a year, the order passed by this Court cancelling his admission is highly unjust on the facts and circumstances of the present case. He has also submitted that the applicant had not committed any fraud nor he had secured his admission wrongly inasmuch as he had been admitted under a scheme viz. promotional quota which was in existence at the relevant time and till then it had not been declared unconstitutional. It is thus submitted that on the peculiar facts of the case, the order cancelling the admission of the applicant should be set aside and he should be allowed to pursue his studies. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Punjab Engineering College v. Sanjay Gulati, AIR 1983 SC 580. It may be noticed that Ganga Prasad Yadav who had appeared in the Entrance Test as a General candidate and secured 55th rank in the merit filed the writ petition on March 17, 1994 claiming two reliefs viz. that a direction be issued to the Institute to admit him in B. Tech. Agriculture Engineering Part I Course and to cancel the admission of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 as they had been admitted without having appeared in the Entrance Test. The writ petition was allowed and the second relief was granted by the judgment and order dated February 8, 1995. It is, therefore, obvious that the writ petition had been filed within four months of the admission of the applicant along with the writ petition, a copy of the judgment and order dated February 2,1994 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42937 of 1993-Pramod Kumar v. Allahabad Agriculture Institute, has been filed as Annexure 2 wherein also the admission granted to the present respondent No. 4 to 6 was challenged being illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This petition was filed on November 22, 1993. A perusal of the judgment shows that though notices were issued to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 but they avoided to accept the same on some pretext. However, as the Court directed that the petitioner of the said case viz. Pramod Kumar Misra, who was in the waiting list in the Entrance Test, be granted admission the Court refrained from passing any order with regard to respondent Nos. 4 to 6. It, therefore, shows that within a few days of the admission of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in the Institute, the same was challenged by filing a writ petition and that. in the earlier petition also they avoided to accept notice of the writ petition. So it is not a case where admission of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 has been challeged after considerable lapse of time. It may also be noticed that the admission policy of Allahabad Agriculture Institute had been challenged in a bunch of writ petitions which gave rise to special appeal No. 546 of 1992 Allahabad Agriculture Institute v. Amir Hussain, which was decided on May 12, 1993. It was held by a Division Bench that any kind of reservation to the candidates other than Church sponsored candidates would be discriminatory and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. It was clearly laid down therein that the Institute, being a Christian minority Institute, can have reservation only to the extent of 50% of the seats and the remaining seats have to be filled in by General candidates and strictly on merit. It is, therefore, obvious that the Institute was fully aware that there can be no reservation beyond 50% of the available seats. Yet it has persisted enacting in defiance of the aforesaid judgment and in admitting students of General category not on merit but in the garb of promotional quota. The law declared by Supreme Court in St Stephen College case and Unnikrishnan's case is the law of the land and is binding upon all. A person acting contrary to the law of land cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Recently the Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of passing order for regularisation of such admissions which had been wrongly secured merely on the ground that the student had studied for some period. In Gurunanak Dev University v. Parminder Kumar Bansal, AIR 1993 SC 2412 similar argument was repelled and admission made one year back was set aside. Again in Gurdeep Singh v. State of J. and K. , AIR 1993 SC 2638 a wrong admission made was set aside with the following observation : "unduly lenient view of the courts on the basis of human considera tion in regard to selection of candidate for admission to educa tional institution by adopting illegal means on the part of the authorities has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in courts of law. Courts do and, should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But consideration of judicial, policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself; engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analysis embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retain ed by an appeal to the sympathy of the court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of courts into private bene volence. "