WP/3008/2003 of ASHISH SONI Vs STATE OF C.G. and ORS. on 17 December 2003

1. The State of Chhattisgarh,Throu9h the Secretary,bepartment of Higher Education,&.K.S. Bhcnwan, Raipur (C.G.)©uru©hosidasUniversity,Bilaspur, Throu9h Registrar,Gwu ©hasidcsUniversity,Bilaspur.

RESPON&ENTS!

Petitioner by Shri tshirendra Mishra, Advocate.

State/Respondent No.l by Shri Sanjay K. Agarwal, Deputy Advoeate ffeneral.Respondent No.2 by Shri AAonindr'a Shrivastava, Advocate.

Before: Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo. J

OR E>ER

(Passed on/^.December 2003)

1. By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution ofIndia the petitioner has challenged the decision of the RespondentNo.2 whereby the petitioner has not been considered for admissionto the AA.B.A. Course on the ground that he has not secured 50%aggregate marks in the graduation degree course examination.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that thepetitioner being a B.Com. 5raduate of 6uru Ghasidas University i.e.Respondent No.2 allowed to appear in Chhati-isgarh Pre-M.B.A. Test, 2003conductedbytheRespondentNo.2.Hesuccessfullyparticipated in the written examination, he was called for groupdiscussionand personal inten/iew in which the petitioner succeededand thereafter he was invited for counseiing on 1September 2003vide Annexure P/4. However he was not considered for adniission onthe ground tiiat he had securedless than50%marksin thegraduation.

3. The further case of the petitioner is that the rule book pubtished bythe Respondent No.2 prominently prescribes that the eligibilit/conditions as mentioned in ftule 2.3 of Chapter 2 is required to befulfilled by all the condidates and Rule 2.3.1 of Chapter 2 clearlyprescribes the educationsl qualification for admission to 2 yesrs fulltime M.B.A. Course as Sraducte/Post Sraduate of any discipline ofanyIndionUniversityorForeignUniversity'/Institute. Ita!soprescribes that the ©raduationshouid be of 3 years regular studyafter passing 12Ctass examination of 10+2 Scheme. The petitionerqualifies both the educational criteria prescribed by the RespondentNo.2.Hehadfurnishedtherelevonteducationalcertificates,domicile certificate ond caste certificate. However, the RespondentNo.2 refused to give admission to the petitioner on non-existentground which is manifestly illegal and opposed to natural justice aidpublic po!icy.

4. No return has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.l in spiteof the opportunity given to the State. Howeve", return has beenfiledon behalf of theRespondent No.2in which it hasbeenmentioned that mere empanelment or inciusion of name in the selectlist does not give the petitioner any indefeasible or vested right foradmission in the M.B.A. Course. The empanelment of the petitionerwas only for the purpose of preparing a list of candidates according

to their merit for being forwarded to different institutions includingtheonsweringinstitution. Inaddition tohisemponelment thepetitioner is also required to fulfill other minimum eligibility criteriaoppSicable to the particular institution where the seats are lying andaccording to the minimum educational qualifications prescribed foradmission to M.B.A. courses under Ordnance No.44 of 6uru ShasidesUniversit/, Bilaspur which has the force of law, minimum qualificationfor admission to M.B.A. program is "Sraduates from all disciplineswith degree recognized by &jru Shasidas University, Bilaspur asequivalent to graduate or post-graduate degree, provided they havesecured 50% of marks (45% for SC/ST candidates) or above incggregateatthefirstgraduateorpost-graduatedegreeexamination." Therefore, in order to ciaim admission a person mustpossess the necessary qualification.

5. Ths 5overnment of Chhattisgarh, Depart-ment of Higher Education,TechnicalEducation,ScienceandTeehnologyorderedtheRespondent No.2 to act as an agency to conduct Chhattisgarh Pre-M.B.A. andAA.C.A.EntrcnceTest, 2003.On ttiebasis of theinstructions soissued, the ftespondent No.2 obtained necessaryguidelines and instructions from the ^overnment vide letter receivedon 29.11.2002. The Respondent No.2 also received the rules foradmission as prescribed by the Oirector of Technica! Education,Chhattisgarh, Raipur. Relevant excerpts of the rules of admissionwhich were framed by the Respondent No.2 as contained in Chapter-2. The Respondent No-2 was directed to hold entrance test foradmission to AA.B.A. and M.C.A. course in two private institutionsaffiliatedtothe InstituteofMcmagement,Pt.RaviShankarUniversit/, Raipur and the Institute of Monagefflent, Suru ShasidasUniversity, Bilaspur. Relevant rules relating to admission to M.B.A.

/

course forPt.RaviShankarUniversity,RaipurisannexedasAnnexure R-2/4.

6. I haveheardMr.DhirendraMishrc,learnedcounsel for theMr.McuiindraShrivastava,learnedcounselforthepetitioner,RespondentNo.2/6urufihasidasUniversityandShriSaijayK.Agarwal,learnedDeputy Advocate feneral for theRespondentNo.l/State.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the broehureissued by the Respondent No.2 for C.Q. Pre-M.B.A. Test, 2003 andthe Rule 2.3.1 of Chapter-2 prescribes the educational qualificationand as per this rule a candidate is required to be a ©raduateorPostgraduate in any discip'ine of any Indian University or ForeignUniversity or Institute recognized by the concerned University asequivalent thereto and no minimum percentage of marks at thatexamination has been prescribed. He further submitt-ed that theseRules were approved by the Director of Technical Education, 5ovt. ofChhattisgarh. As per paragrq3h-3 of the return thisexamination wasconducted for two private institutions affiliated to the institute ofManagement, Pandit Ravi Shankar University, Raipur and the instituteof Mcinagement 6uru iShashidas University, Bilespur.Therefore, hesubmitted that the Respondent No.2 was not within its right to notto consider the case of the petitioner for admission to the M.B.A.course as these rutes were framed by the State 6ovt. and in this rulefflinimum marks of 50% was not prescribed.

8. Learnedcounse! for the petitioner further submitted that oneAA.B.A. course is being conducted by the Pt. Rayi Shankar University,Raipur and one is being conductedin 6uru Shasidas University',Bitaspur oaid two by other two private institutions affiliated with Pt.Ravi Shankar University, Raipur csnd as per Ordnance No. 88 of Pt.

Rayi Shonkar University (Annexure R-2/4) a O.B.C. candidate havingSraduate degree with at least 45% marks is eligible for oppearing inM.B.A. Test examination cnd as per Annexure R-2/3 issued by the6ovt. o-f Chhatt-isgarh a O.B.C. candidate having &raduate degreewith 40% marks is eligiblefor admission.

9. On the other hand learned Deputy Advocate (Senera! argued that ifanyoandidateis not holding a graduate degree withminimumhecannotbeadfflission.For thisprescribed percentage,givenpurpose he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported inJudoment TodGv 2002 (S) SC 84 Professiona! Examinction Board M.P.& another Vs. Prashant Agarwal &another.

10. Leamed counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that as perOrdnance No. 44 of 6uru Shasidas University, a candidate mustpossess a graduate degree with at least 50% marks and he furthersubmitted that even if Rule 2.3.1 of the Rules for admission toM.B.A.testexamiRation2003doesnotprescribeminimumpercentage of marks, even then in view of the Ordnonce No.44 ofouruShasidasUniversity,theisnotentitledforpetitioneradmission.

11. It is admitted position that for M.B.A. Course centralize entranceexaminationisbeing conductedby Pt.RaviShankar University,ftaipur and 6uru Shasidas University, Bilaspur in the aiternative. It isalso admitted position that the Rules for admission are preparedwith the approval of the State of Chhattisgarh, Director, Technical:ducationand this examinationwas conducted for four M.B.A.colleges i.e. one course is being conducted by Kespondent No.2, and 3colleges are under Pt. Ravi Shankar University. In the first place therules for eligibility to appear in the M.B.A. course admission for theyear 2003 does not prescribe minimum percentage at the !eve! of ^raduation degree. Rule 2.3.1 simply prescribes that a candidateseeking admission to two years fulltime fA.S.A. Course should be aSraduate. In alternative even if we consider the arguments oflearned counse! for the Respondent No.2 Shri Manindra Shrivastavathe Ordnance No.88 of Pt. Ravi Shankar Universrty lays down that aO.B.C. amdidate holding ©roduatedecree or Postgraduate degree ofthe University with at teast 45% marks is eligible for admission tothe M.B.A. course and even Additional Director, Technicsl Educationcommunicated the Registrar of Respondent No.2 vide its letterdated 29November, 2002.i41ong witii this letter a document isannexed which shows that a 6raduate is eligible for admission to theM.B.A. course. In the 'eligibility conditions' it is mentioned that a0.6.C. couididate who is appearing or has appeared for finai year ofany degree examination passed bachelor examination with at least40% marks is eligible for admission.

12. Even in the entrance test conducted for M.B.A. course for the year2002-2003 by the Pt. Ravishankcr University the O.B.C. candidatewith 40% firaduation degree were considered for admission to M.B.A.COWS&.

13. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a O.B.C. candidate whopossess graduation degree with 48% marks. In view of the aboveposition since the petitioner possess 6raduation decree with 48%marks ond he is an O.B.C. candidate, therefore he is eligible foradmission to the M.B.A. course 2003-2004, therefore he has beenwrongly denied the admission as he is entitled for consideration foradmissionintheM.B.A.course2003-2004conductedbytheRespondent No.2.14.Learnedcounsel for the Respondent No.2 argued that Pt.RaviShankdr University has not been arrayed as part/, therefore tjie L

Respondent No.2 cannot be directed to consider the ca^ of thepetitioner for admission to 1+ie colleges which are under the controiof Pt. ftavi Shankar University. I do not find any substance in theargument for thereoson that thecentralizeexaminationwasconducted by the Respondent No.2 under the order of tiie 6ovt. ofChhattisgarh,TechnicalEducationDepartmentandthatwasconducted for ai! the four colleges and even the admission processfor ali ths four coileges were conducted by the Respondent No.2.Therefore Pt. Ravi Shankar University is not a necessary party andthe Respondent No.2 has to consider the case of the petitioner foradmission.

15. As far as the argument of leamed Deputy Advoeate Seneral isconcemed. since the petitioner possess the minimum qualificationpreseribed for the M.B.A. course vide Annexure R-2/3, -riiereforethe judgment cited by the Respondent No.l is of no help.

16. In the result the petition of the petitioner is allowed and the Respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of the petitionerfor admission to the M.B.A. course 2003-04.

Sd/-,L.C.BHADOOJudge'