Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20516 of 2019 Petitioner :- Venkateshwara College Of Education Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Dhananjay Awasthi,Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Sri Avneesh Tripathi learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the affiliating University i.e. Chaudhary Chanran Singh University and Sri Rohit Pandey on behalf of the counselling University i.e. M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly.
The grievances raised by the petitioner in the present petition is with regard to the method of counselling adopted by the counselling University for admission to two years B.Ed course 2019-21. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sanctioned intake as approved by the NCTE for admission in B.Ed course in the petitioner's institution is 100 seats. These 100 seats had been bifurcated by the affiliating university in the ratio of 70:30 in Arts/Commerce and Science/Agriculture; respectively, on its own while sending the details to the counselling University. As a result of it, the counselling University is providing candidates to the petitioner institution in the said ratio i.e. 70:30.
Further submission is that there is no rationale for bifurcation of 100 seats in the ratio of 70:30. As a result of bifurcation of approved intake the petitioner's institution is not getting the requisite number of students. Many seats go vacant as the students are not able to opt for the petitioner institution during the course of counselling as a result of bifurcation of the seats.
The contention is that the issue being raised herein has been addressed by this Court in a bunch of writ petition being leading Writ Petition No.28179 of 2017 (Janhit Degree College Vs. State of U.P. & others). Relevant observations in the aforesaid matter are as follows:-
"........Thus from a reading of the aforementioned two documents namely the list of institutions provided by the Affiliating University and the Government order dated 10.06.2015, only this much is reflected that most of the institutions imparting B.Ed. course in the State of U.P. are Co- educational, while some of them are meant for female candidates only. The institutions which are looking to impart B.Ed programme for the candidates in Science stream, having Science subjects at the graduation level, have to maintain a teacher-student ratio of 1:15 in B.Ed. department and further are required to possess infrastructure of either imparting course in Science subject up-to B.Sc level (i.e. running B.Sc. course) or having Science laboratory upto the High school level in B.Ed department or running an institution having recognition in Science subject upto High School level.
In any case, there is no justification for making categorization/classification of Arts (Humanities and Commerce) Science (Science and Agriculture) stream for admission to B.Ed. course i.e. teachers training programme.
In view of the above noted facts, the question arises for consideration as to whether the classification made by the Counselling University and the conditions laid down for admission to B.Ed course in different streams would be voilative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Article 14 speaks of equality but it does not forbid reasonable classification. In order to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled namely (1) that the classification must be found on an intelligible differential which distinguishes the persons or things that are grouped together from others belonging to the same group;
(2) that the differentia must have a rationale to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute or the scheme framed by the State.
While the classification may be founded on different basis but what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of the classification and the object of the provision under classification (reference R.K. Garg Vs. Union of India & others1, Motor General Traders & another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & others.
Article 15 (5) permits reservation in admission of socially and educationally backward classes. The State Government of U.P, issued a legislation to provide special reservation (with horizontal reservation to the persons belonging to such category in their caste wise category i.e. SC/ST and OBC). Apart from the reservation provided by the legislation namely the U.P. Admissions to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006, there is no other provision for reservation or classification in favour of a particular category candidate.
Ours is a welfare State, it cannot make discrimination or classification or provide restriction except in conformity with the principles noted above. Identifying 70% seats for Arts stream and 30% for science stream with further classification in the said streams for admission is without any basis which may have been reflected from the records.
The Court, therefore, reaches to an irresistible conclusion that the practice of classification/categorization for Arts/Science stream and Science stream and bifurcation of seats for the purpose of admission to B.Ed. course adopted by the Counselling University was without any basis having rationale with the object. There is no study or direction of the State Government looking to the requirement of such teachers in the State of U.P. The said practice has been adopted mechanically. No factual foundation has been laid down for adopting bifurcation of seats in the admission to B.Ed. Course.
Admittedly, the State-wise selection based on the comman admission test and allocation of institutions to the candidates is merit wise. The institutions are required to grant admission strictly adhering to the merit list provided by the Counselling University, prepared in the Comman Admission Test subject to fulfillment of all other eligibility requirements.
What logically follows is that there was no rationale for distribution of seats (Arts/Science, Male/Female) by the State for admission to D.El.Ed course, aimed to equip the students with teaching skills so as to meet the physiological, social and educational demand of the young adolescents. (students of class VI to XII). Such classification/distribution cannot be said to be based on an intelligible differentia and as such cannot withstand the test of scrutiny of reasonable classification. The distribution of seats for admission to B.Ed course in Arts/Science category is, therefore, held violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. "
As far as the observations issued by this Court in the judgement and order dated 06.11.2017 as extracted above, there is no dispute. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the parties that the legal position as stated above has attained finality.
On a pointed query made by the Court as to why the said observations have not been followed, Sri Rohit Pandey learned counsel for the counselling University submits that it is not possible for the counselling University to deviate from the details given by the affiliating university. As the affiliating University has provided seats in the ratio of 70:30 for Arts/Commerce & Science/Agriculture, the counselling University has no option. The correction has to be made at the ends of the affiliating University.
On a further query made by the Court, Sri Avneesh Tripathi learned counsel for the affiliating University admits that the corrections needed in pursuance to the directions given by this Court have not done by the affiliating university. He, however, assures that necessary corrections would be made forthwith.
In view of the said submission, it is directed that the affiliating University namely Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut shall do the necessary corrections in its software and forward the same to the counselling University within a period of one week from today. As soon as the corrected software is received by the counselling university, they shall make necessary corrections in their software for the next/future stages of counselling and shall not insist on providing students in the ratio of 70:30 in the ongoing counselling.
The petitioner would be entitled to get the students within the approved intake of 100 seats in the ongoing counselling irrespective of the ratio earlier fixed by the affiliating University.
Subject to the above observations and directions, the present petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 25.6.2019 Himanshu