AYUSH SIMON CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to the Notification dated 23.12.2011 as published in Dainik Sambad dated 24.12.2011 inviting application for admission through lottery if required for Class-I for both girls and boys for the academic year 2012-2013. In continuation to the said notification dated 23.11.2012 another notice under reference No. F. SB/2/Adm/2007-2008 was published in the notice board of Sishu Bihar H.S. School (Primary), the School concerned in this proceeding, on 24.12.2011. By the said notification dated 24.12.2011 it was informed that there would be intake of 72 (seventy two) students in Class-I and out of that 72 (seventy two) seats, 22 (twenty two) seats were reserved for Schedule Tribe candidates, 12 (twelve) seats for the Scheduled Caste candidates and 2 (two) seats were kept reserved for the physically handicapped candidates. The remaining 36 seats were earmarked for the Un-reserved category. The father of the petitioner in response to the said notice deposited the filed up application within the stipulated time and participated in the lottery on 31.01.2012. However, the petitioner was not given berth by way of lottery against the said 36 seats earmarked for the Un-reserved category. It is admitted that all the 12 (twelve) seats earmarked for the Scheduled Caste boys and girls were dully filled up but by the Notification dated 20.06.2012 under No. F. 2(26)-HM/SBHS/2010-2011 (Annexure-P3 to the writ petition) it was informed that 06 seats which were earmarked for the Scheduled Tribe boys and girls could not be filled up. A fresh lottery, therefore, would be conducted to fill up those seats. However, it was also informed that out of those 6 (six) seats 2 (two) seats would be filled up from the students belonging to the Scheduled Caste boys and girls. Later on, by the Notification dated 23.06.2012 under No. No. F. 2(26)-HM/SBHS/2010-2011 (Annexure-P4 to the writ petition) it was informed that the 3 boys and girls from the Un-reserved category and 2 (two) boys and girls from Scheduled Caste category had been selected for admission to Class-I against the seats initially reserved for boys and girls belonging to Scheduled Tribe category.

(2.) Being aggrieved by the said process of admission, the petitioner, a minor represented by his father approached this Court for interference and for ensuring his admission in Class-I in the academic year 2012-2013. As per Section 5 of the Tripura Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Reservation Act, 1991 (as amended) for admission in educational institution, 17% seats are to be reserved for the Scheduled Caste and in terms thereof out of 72 (seventy two) seats 12 (twelve) seats were reserved for the Scheduled Caste boys and girls for admission to Class-I of the said school. The 'quota' has been achieved inasmuch as the seats reserved for the Scheduled Caste boys and girls were filled up at the first phase of the admission. Therefore, the writ petition questioned whether, by earmarking another 2 (two) seats for the Scheduled Caste candidates, the respondents No. 1 to 4, the respondent No. 4 in particular has acted illegally as such action, according to the petitioner, trampled the constitutional vouchsafe.

(3.) Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner emphatically submitted that by keeping 2 additional seats reserved for Scheduled Caste boys and girls for admission to Class-I the respondents No. 1 to 4 have exercised the purported 'exchange method' which has been declared by this Court as unsustainable within the constitutional scheme and thus the said action of the respondents is per se illegal and that resulted in deprivation of the petitioner in getting the admission to Class-I of that school.