SHREYAS SINHA versus THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. on 9 September 2020

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by theDivision Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 23[rd] December, 2019whereby an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judgeon 22[nd] July, 2019 was dismissed.

2. The appellant had sought admission to the five-year law courseoffered by the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences[1]on the basis of the amendment in the West Bengal National Universityof Juridical Sciences Act, 1999[2] vide the Amending Act which came intoforce on 21[st] May, 2019. Such Amending Act inter alia provided forreservation of seats for students domiciled in the State of West Bengalto the extent of at least thirty percent of the total intake of the University.The Amending Act reads as such:

“1. (1) This Act may be called The West Bengal NationalUniversity of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2018.

(2) It shall come into force at once.

2. In the West Bengal National University of Juridical SciencesAct, 1999, after section 4, the following sections shall be inserted:- 4A.(1) The tuition fees in the University shall be such asmay be determined by the State Government from timeto time.

(2) The University shall allow free-ship in tuition fees toat least five per centum of their total strength to thestudents belonging to poor and economically backwardclasses.

Note.- The relevant criteria for determining poor andeconomically backward class shall be such as may bedetermined by the State Government from time to time.

1 for short, ‘University’

2 for short, ‘the Act’

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

(3) The University shall compulsorily make provision forreservation of seats for the students domiciled in theState of West Bengal to the extent of at least thirtypercent of the total intake in the University.

4B. (1) Admission of the student in the University shall bemade on the basis of merit.

B

(2) Merit for admission in the University may bedetermined either on the basis of marks or grade obtainedin the qualifying examination or on the basis of marks orgrade obtained in a relevant entrance examinationconducted by the University or by Common EntranceTest conducted at the State or National level.”

C

3. An advertisement was published on 5[th] January 2019 by aconsortium of 21 National Law Universities in the country to conductCommon Law Admission Test[3] on 12[th] May 2019 for which the last dateDof submission of application forms was 31[st] March 2019. The under-graduate admissions process herein provided for a choice of institutionto the candidate, in which such candidate was willing to seek admissionbased on merit. The date of CLAT was later changed to 26[th] May 2019in which the appellant participated and was ranked 731 in the All IndiaMerit List, declared on 14[th] June 2019. As per the merit list and hisEchoice, he was selected to get admission in National Law University,Odisha but admittedly, he did not join such institution.

4. The University had issued a Brochure to fill up 127 seats basedon CLAT merit list. As per the Brochure, 74 seats were meant forgeneral category candidates and 10 seats for West Bengal domiciledFcandidates including 4 seats for general category.

5. The grievance of the appellant is that 30% of the seats werereserved for the students domiciled in the State of West Bengal whenthe Act was amended on 21[st] May 2019. The Act had come into forcebefore CLAT was conducted, but the benefit of reservation had notGbeen extended to the students by the University in the Academic Session2019-2020.

6. The stand of the University before the Learned Single Judgewas that the consortium conducts the CLAT examination for admission H3 for short, ‘CLAT’

of students from all over the country. The seat matrix as well as thegeneral information about the said examination was uploaded on thewebsite in January, 2019. The table towards the total allocation of seatsacross the categories was incorporated in the information uploaded. Allthe seats in the Domicile category of West Bengal have been filled up,whereas, for the remaining vacant seats, the candidates in terms of therank have been asked to confirm their acceptance. The last candidatewho would be admitted in the General Category has rank 262, whereasthe rank of the appellant is 731. It was also contended that the AmendingAct is prospective and cannot be made applicable in respect of theadmission process which has already commenced from January 2019.The elaborate exercise of admission was started before the AmendingAct came into force and the students had given their option for admissionbased on choices of National Law Universities available.

7. The learned Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the writpetition inter-alia holding that the Amending Act is prospective. Therank of the last candidate admitted from the General Category is 262whereas the rank of the appellant is 731. In terms of the Amending Act,34 seats are, thus, reserved for the candidates domiciled in the State ofWest Bengal being 30% of the total intake. Such seats have to be takenaway from the unreserved category and added to the domiciled category.It would disrupt the entire admission process. The candidates who havealready been allotted seats in different Universities all over the countryas per the option would be seriously prejudiced.

8. In the appeal, before the Division Bench of the High Court, anaffidavit was filed on behalf of the University, and it stated that the firstround of admission was completed on 4[th] July, 2019 and thereafter thelast vacant seats were allotted on 23[rd] July, 2019. The University hasattached the resolution of the Executive Council of the University on10[th] August 2019 based on the recommendation of the Academic Councilof the University on 27[th] July 2019. It was decided that the benefit ofreservation in terms of the Amending Act would be given from the nextAcademic Year i.e. 2020-2021.

9. The Division Bench affirmed the findings recorded by the SingleBench, holding that the Amending Act is prospective and all seats underthe West Bengal domiciled category have already been filled up so as toprevent students of domiciled in Bengal to migrate to other States. Itwas held that sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Amending Act makes AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ait clear that the reservation provided to candidates to apply for CLAT isfor the session starting after the law comes into force. It also held thatthe test of reasonableness and fairness has not been compromised inany manner by the University. The Court held that the Amending Acthas come into force after the admission process was started, therefore,such Amending Act would amount to changing the rules of the gameBafter the start of the admission process.

10. In the Special Leave Petition against the Order passed by theHigh Court, the show cause was issued limited to the question as towhether the appellant can be accommodated for admission to theUniversity for the year 2020-2021.C

11. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellantsubmitted that since the Amending Act came into force at once, theUniversity was bound to provide reservation to students who are domicilesof West Bengal. As the test was held after the Amending Act came intoforce on 21[st] May 2019, the action of the University in not grantingDbenefit of domicile to the appellant was unwarranted, illegal and contraryto the provisions of the Amending Act. It was also argued that theappellant was the only candidate who had sought admission against theseats meant for West Bengal domiciled candidates, therefore, he shouldbe admitted dehors the merit list. Learned senior counsel for theEappellant relied upon the direction (iii) in the judgment of this Courtreported in S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh &Ors.[4]to contend that if a meritorious candidate has been denied admission forno fault of the candidate, for the reason that the cut-off date has passed,such candidate is entitled to be admitted in the next session, if thecandidate has approached the Court at the earliest and without any delay.FThe court can direct the admission to such a candidate in the nextacademic year by directing to increase in the number of seats and if it isfound that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admissionto the meritorious candidate, the Court may direct to reduce the numberof seats in the management quota.Gv.

12. The Judgment in Anupal Singh &Ors. v. State of U.P.Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department &Ors.[5 ]wasrelied upon to contend that the Amending Act does not amount to changingthe rules of the game after the commencement of the selection process.

4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1609H5 (2020) 2 SCC 173

13. On the other hand, Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel appearingfor the University contended that the last candidate admitted in thecategory of domicile students in the West Bengal against the existingquota of 10 was at merit rank No. 356, whereas, the rank of the appellantis No. 731. The decision of the Executive Council of the University wasin terms of the Amending Act as the University resolved to providecompulsory reservation in view of the fact that the admission processhad already been started and the option of the candidates to seekadmission in the various National Law Universities had already beengiven. Any change in the choice of admission would not be possible atsuch a stage because of the large number of candidates taking CLAT.Therefore, the University had decided to give the benefit of reservationin terms of the Amending Act from the next Academic Year. It wasargued that even if the option for domicile for West Bengal candidateswas made available to the appellant, still, he would only have a remotechance of getting admission in the University keeping his rank in themerit list.

14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment ofthis Court in P. Bhima Reddy v. State of Mysore & Ors.[6] to contendthe expression commencement of the Amending Act “at once” meanswithin a reasonable time after the commencement of the Act. Thedecision of the Executive Council of the University was taken within areasonable time and cannot be said to be arbitrary as the admissionprocess was initiated before the Amending Act came into force.Therefore, it was not possible to give effect to the provisions of the Actfrom the Academic Session 2019-2020. Thus, the action of the Universityto grant the benefit of the Amending Act from the next academic sessioncannot be said to be unreasonable and is a possible decision in terms ofthe Amending Act.

15. The Bill for amending the Act was tabled on 16[th] November,2018. The same came to be approved and published in the StateGovernment Gazette on 21[st] May 2019. The Amending Act comes intoforce at once i.e. on 21[st] May 2019 but there is no provision in theAmending Act that it will apply to the on-going admission process. TheUniversity was mandated to provide compulsory reservation of seats tothe extent of at least 30% of the total intake in the University but theyear from which the said admission was to be reserved was not prescribed AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ain the statute. The Academic Council of the University in its 36[th] meetingheld on 27[th] July, 2019 resolved that 30% reservation for West Bengaldomiciles will be implemented from the next Academic Year. Such decisionof the Academic Council was approved by the Executive Council of theUniversity on 10[th] August, 2019.

B16. The total seats at the University are 127 including the seatsmeant for State domicile candidates prior to the amendment. The additionalseats reserved were required to be provided at the time of initiation ofthe admission process which started in January, 2019. Each of thecandidates intending to appear in the CLAT is required to give threechoices for admission into the National Law Universities. The candidatesChad given these choices keeping in view the reservation policy of eachState. Since the reservation policy of 30% seats was not available onthe date when the admission process was initiated, the decision of theUniversity to provide reservation from the next Academic Year cannotbe said to be contradictory to the provisions of the Amending Act. TheDAct is silent in respect of Academic Year in which the benefit ofreservation is to be given. The candidates have already applied and givenan option for admission in the various National Law Universities beforethe coming into force of the Amending Act. Therefore, the Universityextended the benefit of the reservation from the next Academic Session.We find such decision to be fair, reasonable and not arbitrary orEcapricious.

17. None of the judgments referred to by Mr. Vikas Singh arehelpful to the arguments raised. In Anupal Singh’s case, the challengewas to the bifurcation of vacancies in the cadre of subordinate agriculturalservice in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that it amounts toFchanging of the rules of the game in the middle of the selection process.However, the bifurcation of seats amongst the different categories wasdue to the wrong calculation of seats as per the statutory provisions. Itwas held that such an amendment in the bifurcation of seats did notamount to change of rules of the game as it was necessitated on accountGof a mistaken calculation of seats in terms of the provisions of the statute.

18. S. Krishna Sradha’s case is applicable only if a meritoriouscandidate has been denied admission. In the present case, the appellantcannot be said to be a meritorious candidate in the Academic Session2019-2020. The benefit of reservation had been extended to theHcandidates by the Universities from the next Academic Session i.e. 2020-

2021. Since there is no mandate in the Amending Act to grant the benefitof reservation in the Academic Year 2019-2020, therefore, the Universitykeeping in view the entire facts and circumstances has rightly held thatthe benefit of reservation would be extended from the next academicyear as the admission process had already been initiated before cominginto force of the Amending Act.

19. We also find that the judgment referred to by Mr. Chatterji isnot helpful to the arguments raised. The case pertained to a successfultenderer who was not granted a license because he had failed to furnisha statement of immovable properties and to furnish certain sureties asrequired by the Rules prescribed. It was in these circumstances, theCourt held that the expression “at once” has to be interpreted as to bewithin a reasonable time. However, the Amending Act in the presentcase came into force from the date of its publication in the OfficialGazette. Since the Amending Act does not contemplate that the benefitof reservation has to be granted in the ongoing academic session,therefore, the University was at liberty to decide to extend the benefitfrom the next academic session.

20. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the HighCourt or that this decision of the University contravenes the provisionsof the Amending Act, which may warrant interference in the presentappeal. The appeal is, thus, dismissed with no order as to cost.

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H