PRASANNA DINKAR SOHALE Vs. DIRECTOR-IN-CHARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE nine writ petitions be conveniently decided by a common judgment as in each of them a challenge is made to the validity and correctness is made to the validity and correctness of the admission and the Rules for the admission for the 4 year B. Tech (Chemical Engineering) Examination Course (hereinafter referred to as the Degree Course) of the Laximinarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the L. I.T.) This L.I.T. is being run by the University of Nagpur.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the minimum qualification for the admission of the degree course is 12th standard higher secondary school certificate of first year B. Sc or its equivatent. The applicant has to pass in phsice, chemistry and mathematics with 50% marks. In addition, he has also to pass in Language examination. The L.I.T. admits students to the degree course every year. For the year 1979 -80 the L.I.T. issued prospectus for all the courses that are run by the Institute including the degree course in question. In the prospectus it was stated that there would be 60 seats for the degree course and the allocation of those seats would be as follows: 18 seats As per allocation of Government of India. 3 - Jammu and Kashmir 8 - 1 seat for each of the States namely, Rajasthan, Assain, Orissa, Karanataka. Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala, and Nagaland, 7 - Unreserved, __1814 Seats for old Madhya Pradesh.28 Seats For Maharashtra including Vidarbha__60 Candidates were required to submit their applications not later than 1 -7 -1979. However, the time was ultimately extended to 20 -7 -1979. In order to understand the rival contentions of the parties, we would initially state the averments made in Writ Petition No. 2708 of 1279 and the returns of the respective respondents in that petition. If necessary, we would also narrate in brief the contentions raised in the other writ petitions.

(3.) WHEN the hearing of these matters began on 10 -7 -1980, the counsel for the L.I.T. produced before the Court a list of the students admitted for the degree course in 1979 -80 with the necessary break -up the various categories or reservations in such admissions. The petitioner Prasanna, therefore, filed Civil Application No. 1537 of 1980 making some additional averments, The list so produced by the respondents showed that in all 121 admissions were effected. The list has given separate categories about reservations and has mentioned the names of the applicants admitted under each category. Prasanna has prepared a statement on the basis of the list and by Civil Application No. 1537 of 1980, he wants that the said statements should be attached as Annexures E and F to the main petition. In Annexure E he was shown that instead of original 60 seats, in all 79 candidates were allotted as per the various categories mentioned in the prospectus, As the seats have been increased, there is consequential increase in some of the categories. For example, 23 admission were allotted for old Madhya Pradesh instead of 14, while 46 admissions of open competition instead of 28, In Annexure -E Prasanna has thereafter given brake -up of the remaining 40 seats as follows: 4 Wards of Nagpur University Employees.6 Bombay University.3 Poona '2 Shivaji '3 Marathwada '1 Madras '6 Scheduled Castes4 Scheduled Tribes3 Nomadic Tribes5 Other Backward classes1 Political Suffer__40 Prasanna has also filed Civil Application No. 1546 of 1960 challenging the formation of the above -mentioned Categories and allotment of seats for each of these categories. In Annexure -E (sought to be produced by Civil Application No. 1537 of 1979), Prasanna has stated that these students having marks less than him, have been allotted from Madhya Pradesh and that 4 seats from Jammu and Kashmir were admitted though they had secured marks less than him. There is another statement in Annexure -F that 11 students (as mentioned in that Annexure) from the categories of scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and nomadic tribes were admitted though they had accured marks less than Prasanna. Thus Prasanna has challenged the creation of new categories (including the one meant for the Wards of the University employees). His contention is that the L. I. T is bound to admit the students as per the categories mentioned in the prospectus and that the said institution is stopped from altering or adding to the categories to the prejudice of Prasanna. Prasanna has also alleged that on the increase of seats from 60 to 121, there should have been proportionate increase of seats under each of the categories. He wants to state that in the prospectus there were 28 general seats and that they should have been increased to 56, He has also alleged in Civil Application No, 1548 of 1980 that the reservation for the categories as mentioned in the original prospectus and also as subsequently effected is liable to be struck downs as it is excessive reservation.