HANWANTCHAND Vs. PRINCIPAL MAHARAJ KUMAR COLLEGE JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution by Hanwantchand against the Principal, Shri Maharaj Kumar college, Jodhpur, and the University of Rajputana, Jaipur, for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the opposite parties.

(2.) The case of the applicant is briefly this; He is a resident of Jodhpur, and appeared at the Intermediate Examination in Commerce in 1955 held by the Central Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. This examination is recognised by the University of Rajputana, and the applicant passed in the second division. He had not studied in any College or recognised institution, but appeared as a private candidate as that is permitted by the rules of the Ajmer Board. After passing the. examination, he applied for admission in the third year commerce class of Shri Maharaj Kumar College, Jodhpur. The principal, however, refused admission to him, and based his refusal on the instructions received from the Registrar of the Rajputana University. The instructions were that those persons Who passed their intermediate examination as private candidates from other Universities or Boards should not be admitted to the degree classes of colleges affiliated to the University of Rajputana except teachers and women candidates. The applicant has attacked these instructions of the University of Rajputana on the ground that they make an unfair discrimination between those students who pass the intermediate examination of other universities or Boards after attending a course of study in recognised institutions, and those who pass the same examination but without attending such a course of study. It is urged that these instructions based on a resolution of the Academic Council and the Syndicate of the University of Rajputana are hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also urged that such a restriction cannot be placed under the provisions of the University of Rajputana Act. It is, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to the opposite parties to admit the applicant in the third year commerce class. Finally it is pointed out that though the resolution had been passed in May, 1954, students were admitted in July, 1954, in spite of the resolution, and it was enforced only from July, 1955, and this is also said to be discriminatory.

(3.) The application has been opposed by the opposite parties on two main grounds. In the first place, it is urged that Article 14 does not apply to the acts of autonomous bodies like the University. In the second place, it is urged that even if Article 14 applies, the resolution is based upon reasonable classification on an intelligible differentia having reasonable connection with the objectives to be achieved.