ABHILASH KUMAR Vs. H.P.KRISHI VISHVAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners who were unable to get their selection for admission to the B.V.Sc. & AH Course in the 1st Respondent-Institution, seeking for the relief in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 7.9.1998 filed as Annexure PA insofar as it purports to give benefit of reservation to the wards of deceased employees in B.V.Sc. & AH course while making recommendation for admitting Respondents 2 to 5, by applying the principles of severalty. Similarly, the decision of the Board of Management of the Respondent-University dated 17.10.1998 ratifying the recommendations made as above in Annexure PA, also is sought to be set aside with a consequential direction to the 1st Respondent-University to extend the benefit of reservation of course to almost all the employees of the University. Consequently, the admission granted to Respondents 2 to 5 on 12.10.1998 in the first year B.V.Sc. & AH course is also sought to be set aside with a further direction to admit the Petitioners to the said course on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the Combined Entrance Test held on 14.6.1998. The case of the Petitioners is that the 1st Respondent issued a prospectus for B.V.Sc. & AH course for the academic session 1998-99 and Chapter-II of the Prospectus dealt with the programme Intake and Reservation. While para 2.2(b) provided that one seat in each programme shall be reserved for sons/daughters/spouses of the employees of the H.P.K.V. provided they qualify the Entrance Test and the same candidate cannot be allowed the advantage of the admission granted more than once, in para 2.2 (e), it has been provided that a seat will be provided for admission to a son/daughter in lieu of the benefit of employment admissible to widow/son/daughter of the H.P.K.V. employee, who dies in service subject to fulfilment of minimum eligibility requirement as may be prescribed from time to time. Chapter-Ill, particularly para 3.1 of the Prospectus, stipulated that admissions to every programme shall normally be made at the commencement of first semester of each academic year and as per para 3.2 an objective type Combined Entrance Test should be held for admission to the courses in question and the basis of admission in the programme concerned shall be merit as determined by the performance in the competitive examination, subject to the Regulations framed in this behalf by the Academic Council from time to time. The minimum qualifications specified is prescribed in para 3.6 of the said Chapter.

(2.) The case of the Petitioners is that all the Petitioners except Petitioner No. 1 submitted their applications for their claims being considered against one seat reserved for son/daughter/spouse of the employee of the H.P.K.V. and Petitioner No. 1 submitted his application under S.T. category for which there is a 7-1/2% reservation. Apart from, submitting their applications, complete in all respects in time, the Petitioners also participated in the Combined Entrance Test held on 14.6.1998 and the Petitioners No. 1 to 5 secured 90, 120, 93, 85 and 101 marks, respectively, in the said combined test. While matter stood thus, it appears that widows of some of the deceased employees who have died in harness, made representations to the first Respondent to give admission to their wards on the analogy of one Ms. Anuradha Verma, daughter of late Sh. S.D. Verma who was said to have given admission in the year 1993 by the Board of Management on the recommendations of the Academic Council a seat in B.V.Sc. & AH course as a special case vide Item No. 7(16) of the 51st meeting held on 5.8.1993, and thereupon the request of the widows of the deceased employees appears to have been placed before the Academic Council which as per the resolution in respect of Item No. 12 in the meeting held on 8.9.1998 recommended for the admission to the wards of the deceased employees who are Respondents 2 to 5 and submitted the same to the Board of Management. It is stated therein their admissions would come into force after due approval by the Board. It is useful to refer to the resolution itself which shows that the Academic Council was unwittingly as also with reluctance has accorded such recommendation under some constraining influence. The resolution passed reads thus:

(3.) On the basis of the recommendations of the Academic Council, Respondents 2 to 5 who appear to have secured only 81, 91, 85 and 95 marks, respectively in the combined Entrance Test appear to have been accorded admission in B.V.Sc. & A.H. Course on 12.10.1998 on provisional basis, apparently on the advice or directions of the Vice-Chancellor since the resolution as such does not permit any such provisional admission. At that stage, the fathers of Petitioners No. 1 to 3 and 5 and mother of Petitioner No. 5 made representations on 14.10.1996 to the Vice-Chancellor bringing out the fact that the fathers of the Petitioners are also employees of the H.P.K.V. University and having regard to the marks secured by them vis-a-vis marks obtained by Respondents 2 to 5 their claim should be preferentially considered they being the wards of presently serving employees. In the representations, it has also been highlighted that on account of the death in harness of the fathers of Respondents 2 to 5 the employment facilities have already been granted to and availed of by the wives of the deceased employees. But, nothing appears to have happened thereon and the only course of action adopted by the 1st Respondent appears to have been to place the recommendations of the Academic Council before the Board of Management of the University and as to how the Board viewed the matter and with what reservations and repulsiveness the Board felt obliged to approve it, knowing it to be an illegal thing is brought out even by the decision of the Board, as set out at page 4 of the reply of the 1st Respondent-University in the following terms: