BANSHIDHAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition of Banshidhar Vyas under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of Mandamus or other direction to the Principal, Jaswant College, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2) to admit him to the LL. B. (Previous) Class.

(2.) THE petitioner graduated B. A. (External), having taken the degree from the gujrat university as a private candidate. He applied to the Principal, Jaswant college, Jodhpur (respondent No. 2), on August 2, 1961, for admission to the ll. B. (Previous) Class. He was informed that he could not be admitted as instructions had been received from the University of Rajasthan (respondent No. 1) in their letter Ex. P. 2, dated February 13, 1960, that students passing the B. A. Examination as private candidates from other Universities should not be admitted to the LL. B. classes. The petitioner thereupon formally wrote to the Principal enquiring why he was not being admitted when he was eligible and there were vacancies. The Principal informed him in his letter (E. P. 4) dated August 5, 1961, that he was not eligible for admission under the rules. As the rule under which the petitioner was held to be ineligible was not mentioned in that letter, the petitioner personally went to the Principal for clarification and he was informed that he had not been admitted because students who had passed the degree examination as private candidates from other Universities could not be admitted under the instructions of the University. The petitioner moved the Chancellor and the Visitor of the University to redress the wrong, because he had been refused admission although he was eligible and there were vacancies in the College, but those authorities have not disposed of his representation so far. Thus far, the facts are not in dispute.

(3.) THE controversy between the parties is that while the University of Rajasthan claims that the petitioner is not eligible for admission to the LL. B. (Previous) Class under the proviso to Ordinance No. 252 of the University which was added by the syndicate's resolution dated February 13, 1960, the petitioner contends that no such bar could be raised on the authority of the proviso as its addition to the ordinance has been held to be illegal in a decision of this Court in Sucha Singh v. The University of Rajasthan, Writ Petn. No. 123 of 1961, D/- 6-7-1961 (Raj ). While therefore the petitioner claims that he is eligible under the Ordinance, the university asserts that the defect in the earlier resolution dated February 13, 1960, has been rectified as the Academic Council has "approved and ratified' that resolution in its meeting on August 19, 1961, and that the petitioner has therefore been rightly refused admission to the LL. B. (Previous) class. The petitioner has further pleaded that the refusal of his admission 13 arbitrary and discriminatory, to which the University's answer is that the petitioner could not claim admission to the LL. B. (Previous) class as of right and that it was for the University to decide what students should be admitted in its affiliated colleges. In this connection it has also been pleaded by the University that when it does not allow private candidates (other than women candidates, teachers, inspecting officers of the Education Department and Librarians of colleges) to appear in its B. A. Examination so that no private candidate can take its B. A. degree and seek admission to the LL. B. (Previous) class, the question of admission of the B. A. External degree-holders of other Universities to its LL. B. (Previous) class could not possibly arise. The University further claims that the Syndicate has the power under Section 22 of the University of Rajputana Act, 1946 (hereafter referred to as the Act) to maintain proper standards of teaching and examination in consultation with tile Academic Council and if private students have been debarred from seeking admission to the LL. B. (Previous) Class with a view to improving the standard of legal education, the petitioner could not be heard to lay a charge of discriminatory treatment.