MANOJ KUMAR KATHURIA Vs. HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Court for quashing clause 29(i) of the Prospectus of Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar for the Session 1991-92 in so far as it provides that children who have studied in a village school for eight academic years and have in addition passed Matriculation or Middle Examinations, as regular students from a village School, of Haryana Board will be entitled to weightage of 10% marks of total marks of qualifying examination, in this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioners after having passed 10 + 2 examination or equivalent examination from the institutions located in the urban areas were granted admission to the B.Sc. (Hons). Agriculture degree courses in the Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar (for short, the University), purely on the basis of their merit. Each of the petitioners secured more than 85% marks calculated on the basis of Overall Grade Point Average of 4.00 basis (equivalent to 100 marks) under the Semester System. They applied for admission in Postgraduate Programme of M.Sc for the session 1991-92 in the University. They were not offered admission for the programme for which they had applied and were eligible. The students who were far lower in merit were given the weightage under clause 29(i) of the Prospectus, which envisaged that the children who had studied in a village school for eight academic years and had in addition passed Matriculation or Middle Examination of the Haryana School Education Board as regular students from a village school would be entitled to weightage of 10% marks of the total marks of qualifying examination. The respondents gave the benefit of this provision to the students who had studied for 8 academic years in a village school, and had passed Matriculation and Middle examinations of the Haryana School Education Board as regular students from a village School, and by giving this weightage they had an edge over the petitioners and those students secured admission in the programme of their choice while the petitioners, who are more meritorious than them, could not get admission in the programme of their choice.

(3.) The writ petition came up for hearing before J. L. Gupta, J. on 23/01/1992. He felt that the respondents could not give preferential treatment to the students who had studied in rural schools and clause 29(i) of the University Prospectus should be struck down being arbitrary and unconstitutional. He opined that his conclusion found support from the judgement of the apex Court in Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana, AIR 1984 SC 1534. But he noticed that in Amar Bir Singh v. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak ILR (1980) 2 Punj and Har 493, a Full Bench of this Court has held that the reservation of seats for students in Medical College faculties, who had received education in rural schools was valid. The view taken in Amar Bir Singh's case (supra) was not approved by the apex Court in Suneel Jatley's case (supra). Since Amar Bir Singh's case has not been expressly overruled by the apex Court, the learned Judge thought it fit to refer this case to a larger Bench. It is how the matter has been placed before us.