SAMIR ANAND Vs. ARMY INSTITUTE OF LAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition bearing No. CWP 10098 of 2000 was initially filed on 2.8.2000 my Master Samir Anand against Army Institute of Law in which he prayed for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing the admissions of the wards of Army personnel of 30 seats being in excess for 50% quota and against the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This writ petition was subsequently amended and it was filed against the Army Institute of Law. Respondents 2 to 7 belong to Army category (students of First year of BALLB course), and respondents 8 to 13 belong to Punjab quota. With the amended prayer, the petitioner prayed for quashing of the admissions of the wards of the Army personnel and Punjab residents beyond 51 seats being in excess of 85% quota. The petitioner further made a prayer that direction be issued to the respondents to admit the petitioner in LL.B. First Year Course.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner in the amended petition is that the respondents is an institute established by the Army Welfare Education Society. It is affiliated to the Punjabi University, Patiala. Respondent No. 1 invited applications for admission to the First Year of LL.B. Course for the session 2000 -2001. The entrance test for this purpose was held on 21.5.2000. The petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 16 of the list prepared for All India category candidates. The petitioner and the candidates placed at serial No. 15 in the merit list were bracketed inasmuch as both of them secured 196 marks in the written test. Now the petitioner understands that he is at No. 3 in the waiting list of All India Category candidates. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents had invited applications for the admission of 60 students in the First Year of BA.LL.B. Course. The break -up of the -seats as given in the Prospectus is as under : -

(3.) The grouse of the petitioner is that respondent No. I has provided more than 50% reservation for the wards of the Army personnel. This is not in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the excess reservation for the wards of the Army Personnel is discriminatory and unsustainable on the touch stone of yardstick of Constitutionality. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Madan v/s. State of Haryana & others, : (1995)2 SCC 135 and according to the petitioner this judgment specifies that only 85% of the total seats are permissible for the candidates belonging to a particular region or institute and the rest of the seats i.e. 15% are to be left open for the candidates belong to All India General Category. In the present case, the respondents made reservation for institution and regional candidates to the extent of 95% of the seats which is not in conformity with the ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, the stand of the petitioner is that admissions made in respect of the institutional and regional candidates beyond 85% of the seats deserves to be quashed and petitioner who was at serial No. 3 in the waiting list has become eligible for seeking admission in the Law Course. With this background, the petitioner has made the above prayer.