CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION Vs. PRIYANKA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 bf the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court has been preferred against the order dated 10 -1 -2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.W.J. C. No. 10858 of 2000 (Ms. Priyanka Prasadv. State of Bihar and Ors.), whereby the relief of admission to the branch of choice in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, has been granted to the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein).

(2.) The combined Engineering Competitive Examination is held by appellant No. 1 herein, a statutory body, for admission to the Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Bihar. The appellant had issued a prospectus with respect to the Combined Engineering Competitive Examination, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1999 examination'), Clause 14.4 of which is relevant in the present context and is set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: It is manifest from a plain reading of the aforesaid condition that 50% of the seats of each discipline/branch were reserved for the students of the Patna University. Respondent No. 1 appeared at the 1999 examination conducted by the appellant on 4 -7 -1999, and the results were published on 14 -8 -1999. After the results were published but before the counseling commenced, the appellant took the decision not to enforce Clause 14.4 (supra) of the prospectus. In other words, no seat of any discipline/branch was reserved for the students of the Patna University. The petitioner took admission to one of the engineering courses in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna, which was not of her choice. She raised a grievance before the authorities that had Clause 14.4 of the prospectus been implemented, she would have got the discipline of her choice.

(3.) The appellant did not grant the relief and, therefore, she preferred C.W.J.C. No. 9200 of 1999 before this Court which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 15 -3 -2000, whereby it was observed that the petitioner had moved the Court while counselling was going on and the same shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The executive decision to ignore Clause 14.4 of the prospectus was taken after the results of the 1999 examination had been published,. The clause had been implemented in 1998, and it was held that the same was constitutionally valid. It was not possible at that stage to interfere with the entire . result and admission made pursuant thereto. However, the writ petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Clause 14.4 and, therefore, the following directions were passed. Hence, in my view, facts of this case warrant for following directions; (i) For the purpose of working out the benefits in the matter of choice of subject or branch in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna for this petitioner alone, the concerned respondents should nationally work out the reservation available to the students of Patna University for different branches in terms of Clause 14,4 of the prospectus contained in Annexure -1. (ii) If on such notional calculation the petitioner is found entitled on her merit as well as on the basis of preference available to the student of Patna University to a Branch/Course of her choice then the same should be offered to her in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna. (iii) The aforesaid exercise must be completed by the concerned respondents within a period of three weeks from the date of production/communication of a copy'of this judgment/order before respondent No. 2. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above but without any order as to costs.