PRIYANKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by a student who took the Combined Engineering Competitive Examination, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Examination 1999) conducted by respondent No. 2 on 4 -7 -99. Results have been published on 14 - 8. -99 and the petitioner by virtue of her position on merit has been admitted to one of the engineering courses in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna. The grievance of the petitioner is that Respondents have not prepared the result and offered admission to the students of Patna University on a preferential basis as per institutional preference provided by Clause -14.4 of the Prospectus published by the Respondent for the examination of 1999, a copy whereof is Annexure - 1. to the writ application. According to petitioner Clause -14.4. of the prospectus if implemented by the respondents may enable her to get admission into a course or branch of Engineering of her choice. Accordingly, prayer has been made in the writ petition to direct the respondents to republish results and grant admission afresh by giving institutional preference to the students of Patna University against fifty percent seats in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna.

(2.) ALTHOUGH processes of Counselling for admission into Bihar College of Engineering was not stayed by this Court but by order dated 29 -10 -1999, this Court observed that the Counselling was going on but the same will be subject to result of the writ petition. Admittedly, Counselling stage is over and the students have been admitted on all the seats in Bihar College of Engineering as per decision of the respondents, that is on the basis of merit -cum -choice without providing for institutional reservation as mentioned in Clause 14.4 of the prospectus.

(3.) THE respondents do not dispute the fact that a similar provision for institutional preference was there in the prospectus for the examination of 1998 and the same was acted upon the respondents. Their stand in the counter -affidavit is that they got realisation, after the publication of results that such a provision for institutional preference is against mandate of equality contained in the Constitution of India and may also be against the provisions of reservation to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Backward Categories and other categories of persons permitted by reservation policy of the State of Bihar. Only on this plea, the respondents admittedly did not implement Clause 144 of the Prospectus of that although a decision to effect either of the Controller of the Examination or by the Board (the position has not been made clear as no orders