MANISHA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Shahi, learned Advocate General for the Chanakya National Law University, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ''University '') and its functionaries.

(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the action of the respondent University in not admitting her for the B.A. LL.B, (Hons.), 2006 course (hereinafter referred to as the "Course"). Petitioner, who comes from Female Backward Class category applied for admission in the Course. Her application form is contained in Annexure -B to the counter affidavit where from it appears that the applicant was instructed to indicate whether he/she belongs to any reserved category with further instruction to enclose proof in support thereof. In compliance Of the said instruction, petitioner indicated that she belongs to Female Backward Class Category. It appears thereafter she was furnished with the Entrance Test Admit Card which is contained in Annexure -1 to this application, perusal whereof indicates that she was assigned 245 as her Roll Number and her centre was at Science College, Patna. In terms of the Admit Card, petitioner appeared in the written test and was even declared successful in the Female Backward Class Category but her merit position was not such which could ensure her admission in the Course in the said Female Backward Class Category and, accordingly, she was not admitted in the Course. Thereafter, she sought appropriate information from the authorities of the University and came to learn that her merit position in the Female Backward Class Category did not merit her admission in the Course as for the said category there was only three per cent reservation. She there after further ascertained status of the admission made in the Backward Class Category and learnt that the last candidate admitted in Backward Class Category secured only 99 marks yet admitted ignoring her higher 109 marks which prompted the petitioner to file this writ petition on 25.8.2006 alleging injustice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as she, having secured 109 marks was not admitted in the Backward Class Category, whereas, another candidate securing 99 marks was admitted. In support of the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two judgments of this Court in the case of Nidhi Sinha and Anju Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2000(2) PLJR 108 and Manoj Kumar and Shanti Bhushan vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2000(2) PLJR 285, and with reference to those judgments, it was submitted that either the last candidate admitted in the Backward Class Category be removed and in her place petitioner be accommodated or a seat in the Course be created so as to accommodate the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate General has opposed the prayer made in the writ petition with reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit as also with reference to the provisions contained in the Bihar (In Admission in Educational Institutions) Reservation Act, 2003 which, inter alia, provides that Women of Backward Classes will include even women of all the reserved classes including that of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Extremely Backward Classes and Backward Classes and as the petitioner indicated her preference that she belongs to the Female Backward Class Category, her candidature was considered in the Female Backward Class Category and not in the Backward Class Category. If the petitioner was desirous of her case being considered in the Backward Class Category then she should have also indicated in the column meant for indicating reservation preference that she also belongs to Backward Class Category then only her case would have been considered in the Backward Class Category. In the circumstances, according to learned Advocate General, the grievance raised in this petition that candidate securing lesser marks has been admitted is wholly misconceived and should be rejected. He further submitted that in any view of the matter, Mid -Session Admission should not be allowed as admission having been closed on 29.7.2006, the Course having commenced on 14.8.2006, Surprise Test having been already held between 14.9.2006 to 19.9.2006 and Mid -Semester Examination scheduled to be held between 23rd October, 2006 to 30th October, 2006. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Medical Council of India vs. Madhu Singh and Ors., reported in (2002)7 SCC 258 para -18 and the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2005)2 SCC 65.