SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK (HARYANA)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Shamsher Singh challenging the action of the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (for short 'the University') in not allowing him admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course despite the fact that he cleared the entrance test held for the purpose and was provisionally placed at Serial No. 1 in the merit list of scheduled caste candidates for whom 33 seats stood reserved as per the prospectus issued by the University.

(2.) There were in all about 192 seats out of which about 33 seats stood reserved for scheduled castes/backward classes which were to be filled up for the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses in the Medical College, Rohtak, Agroha Medical College, Rohtak, Dental College, Rohtak and the D.A.V. Centenary College, Yamuna Nagar (which too is a Dental College) for the Session commencing in the year 1991. A common entrance test was held by the University and the petitioner who appeared for the same as a scheduled caste candidate was declared successful in the said test and was placed at serial No. 1 amongst the scheduled caste candidates though his result was declared provisionally subject to his eligibility/verification of original documents. He was, however, not allowed admission as it transpired that he was really the son of Raj Pal Singh, who is a Jat by caste but had been taken in adoption by one Rame, a Balmiki only a few months before the entrance test was conducted by the University. It is this action of the University which has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) The fact that the petitioner is the real son of Raj Pal Singh and that he had been adopted by Rame son of Dina, is not is in dispute. The petitioner on the basis of his adoption by Rame claims to be a scheduled caste by adoption and thus eligible to take the entrance test as a scheduled caste candidate. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner at the time of his adoption was more than 15 years of age and he has not pleaded any custom or usage applicable to the parties which permitted persons beyond the age of 15 years being taken in adoption.