RAHUL DIXIT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SIX petitioners have made a common cause staking their claim to admission in the State Engineering Colleges for the academic session 1989 -90. They all appeared in the Entrance Test of 1989, conducted by the Professional Examination Board, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter, 'Board', third respondent) and secured marks in the range of 47 to 48.7 percent. When hearing of the petition was taken up on 3 -5 -1990, it appeared that there was conflict between two Division Bench decisions of this Court and it was also found that the two views were irreconcilable. This is how this larger Bench has taken seisin of the matter.

(2.) WE may immediately refer, therefore, to those decisions. Indeed, we may observe also that the petitioners relied on the decision rendered by the Division Bench at the Main Seat on 24 -4 -1990 in the case of the Manoj Verma and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, M. P. No. 4916 of 1989, and submitted that their case being same as that of the petitioners in that case, they were entitled to same relief. It is true that a direction was made in that case against the respondents to admit the petitioners in the 1st year Engineering course by providing additional seats for them, if necessary. But, it is equally true that another Division Bench of this Court, at Indore, refused to grant the same relief to similar petitioners by a common order, passed on 16 -4 -1990, in four writ petitions (M. Ps. Nos. 1580/89, 16/90, 25/90 and 63/90) and one Contempt matter (M.C.C. No. 263/89, Manoj Sood v. State of M. P.). This decision shall be hereinafter referred, for the sake of convenience, as Manoj Sood (No. 2) inasmuch as the Contempt matter arose out of the decision rendered on 1 -8 -1989 (reported in 1990 MPLJ 791 = AIR 1990 MP 5 = 1989 JLJ 645) to be referred hereinafter as Manoj Sood No. 1. Be it also mentioned that A. G. Qureshi, J. was a party to both decisions rendered at the Indore Bench. It may also be noted that before the Main Seat in Manoj Verma's case, the subsequent Indore Bench decision dated 16 -4 -1990 (Manoj Sood No. 2) does not appear to have been cited.

(3.) SHORTLY put, petitioners' case in that in Annexure P/1, list published by the Director of Technical Education, Madhya Pradesh, as many as 180 'failure candidates of 1988 PET' have been selected for admission bypassing their claim illegally and arbitrarily. It is also their case that as per Annexure R/2 of the return of the respondents, which is order dated 11 -10 -1989 of the State Government, they were entitled to. admission as the State Government had reduced the qualifying marks for 'general' category candidates taking 1989 test. All of them had secured more thant 47% marks and were accordingly qualified for admission under that order.