SHANTANU AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter pertains to admission to combined test of engineering examination in the State of U.P. According to the rules the admissions have to be made strictly on merit. The petitioners position in merit list was 3212. As his merit was lower in comparison to the candidates who were given free or payment seats. He under the N.R.I, quota was admitted in the Engineering College at Lucknow. His grievance appears to be is that one Ms. Garima Johri who belonged to Armed Forced Category and her position in the merit list was 7623 wad admitted in Moti Lal Nehru Engineering Collage at Allahabad, which could not have been done as she was lower in merit in comparison to the petitioner who was not found to be adjusted in Armed Forces Category because he was lower in merit in that category. She was called for counselling on 17.8.1998. There she opted in N.R.I, category and was allowed admission in Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College, Counselling of the petitioner took place on 18.8.1998. As he also opted for N.R.I, category and the quota of N.R.I. seats was completed in Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College at Allahabad the petitioner was admitted in the Engineering College at Lucknow which The joined under protest. It was vehemently submitted by Sri Rakesh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that as the petitioner in comparison to Ms. Garima Johari was higher in merit hence she should not have been admitted in Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College at Allahabad and the said girl could have been adjusted at Lucknow.

(2.) In the Counter affidavit it has been averred that Ms. Garima Johri was in a better position inasmuch as she belonged to Armed Forces Category and as after counselling she opted for N.R.I, seat she was admitted at Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College at Allahabad while the petitioner was adjusted at Lucknow.

(3.) The admission of the Ms. Garima Johri in Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College at Allahabad has not been assailed in this writ petition, but the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents while giving preference to the said girl was unfair and unjust and the petitioner has been discrimination. The relief is equitable relief and when the Courts find that the order passed by any administrative authority, tribunal or a Court is unconscientionable then it may interfere. Even irregularity or illegality cannot be subjeted to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Only such irregularity or illeggality which resulted into mis-carriage of justice can be set at knought by this Court under writ jurisdiction. In the present case equities have been adjusted. Ms. Garima Johri as well as the petitioner have been given admission. The contention that Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College is a better college in comparison does not appeal to me. Both impart engineering education, although the education and the course may be different. In the matter of selection, Selection Committee often gives weightage to the particular University/College. In the matter of selection of engineers some years back weightage was given to the students who passed out from Rurkee University but after the advent of freedom in this Country there was considerable growth of Engineering Colleges throughout the India as well as in the State of U.P. Some of those Colleges enjoy good reputation hence it cannot be said that non-admission of a student in a particular College in any way amounts to discrimination. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India the discrimination which is obnoxious can be set at knought by this Court but the discrimination on trivial issuer cannot be said to be a discrimination within the meeting of a Article 14 of the Constitution of India.