- (1.) THESE nine writ petitions be conveniently decided by a common judgment as in each of them a challenge is made to the validity and correctness is made to the validity and correctness of the admission and the Rules for the admission for the 4 year B. Tech (Chemical Engineering) Examination Course (hereinafter referred to as the Degree Course) of the Laximinarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the L. I.T.) This L.I.T. is being run by the University of Nagpur.
(2.) THERE is no dispute that the minimum qualification for the admission of the degree course is 12th standard higher secondary school certificate of first year B. Sc or its equivatent. The applicant has to pass in phsice, chemistry and mathematics with 50% marks. In addition, he has also to pass in Language examination. The L.I.T. admits students to the degree course every year. For the year 1979 -80 the L.I.T. issued prospectus for all the courses that are run by the Institute including the degree course in question. In the prospectus it was stated that there would be 60 seats for the degree course and the allocation of those seats would be as follows: 18 seats As per allocation of Government of India. 3 - Jammu and Kashmir 8 - 1 seat for each of the States namely, Rajasthan, Assain, Orissa, Karanataka. Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala, and Nagaland, 7 - Unreserved, __1814 Seats for old Madhya Pradesh.28 Seats For Maharashtra including Vidarbha__60 Candidates were required to submit their applications not later than 1 -7 -1979. However, the time was ultimately extended to 20 -7 -1979. In order to understand the rival contentions of the parties, we would initially state the averments made in Writ Petition No. 2708 of 1279 and the returns of the respective respondents in that petition. If necessary, we would also narrate in brief the contentions raised in the other writ petitions. Prasanna, the petitioner in Writ petition No. 2706/79 has passed the qualifying examination with 215 marks in the three concerned subjects namely, physics, chemistry and mathematice. The percentage of these marks in 71.66 per cent. He filed an application for admission to the degree course with the L.I.T. The Selection Committee prepared the select list in two instalments. Firstly, it was published in the middle of August 1979 and chance calls were also sent to those candidates who had secured up to 80% marks, Prasanna did not receive any such chance call, as his percentage was 71.66 The L.I.T. increased the number of admissions from 60 to about 121, A news item appeared in the Nagpur Times dated 5 -9 -1979 that the last date for admission to the degree course would be 6 -9 -1979. Prasanna attended the Office of L.I.T. on 6 -9 -1979. Similarly, the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 2714/79, 2715/79, 2905/79 and 2906/79 and 2854/79 were not present. The grievance of the petitioner Prasanna is that he has been improperly refused admission though he has secured better percentage of marks as compared to some of the students who have been admitted. For example, respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No, 2706/79 was admitted though his marks in the science subjects were 212, Another grievance is that on 6 -9 -1979 a peculiarly irregular procedure was followed for admitting the students. What was done was that the L.I.T. took into account the merits of the students who were present in the office on 6 -9 -1979 and on the basis of that merit, the admission were made. The contention of Prasanna is that this procedure is had inasmuch as there was no publications that the process of admission will be completed by filling the vacancies or amongSt those applicants who would be present on 6 -9 -1979. The applicants were kept in dark and as such the students having better merit than those admitted on 6 -9 -1979 could not attend the office. Prasanna has described this procedure of admission on 6 -9 -1979 as 'spot admission' and has stated that this is highly illegal and discriminatory. According to him, the L.I.T. authorities were expected to prepare the select list on the basis of comparative merits of the applicants. The admissions should have been granted with the help of such select list. Some times the selected students might not join the degree course and, therefore, the L.I.T. should have prepared a waiting list which should also have been prepared on the basis of merits and thereafter should have also have been prepared on the basis of merits and thereafter should have offered admission to the students mentioned in the waiting list, as per the serial number in the list, Prasanna has contended that the type of admission that was effected on 6 -9 -1979 is unheard of and it is liable to be quashed as the L.I.T authorities have used double standard while making admissions namely, (1) the standard of merit in case of some students and (2) the presence on the last date of admission. It is alleged that all this is discriminatory and liable to be struck down. Another contention of Prasanna is that after issue of the prospectus, the L.I.T. authorities decided to reserve four seats for the Wards of the University employees and that on the basis of that reservation, respondents Nos. 3, 6,7 and 8 have been admitted though they could not have secured admission if the test of merit along would have been applied. It was contended that the classification of 'wards of the University employees' is not a reasonable classification and that it has no nexus with the related object
(3.) WHEN the hearing of these matters began on 10 -7 -1980, the counsel for the L.I.T. produced before the Court a list of the students admitted for the degree course in 1979 -80 with the necessary break -up the various categories or reservations in such admissions. The petitioner Prasanna, therefore, filed Civil Application No. 1537 of 1980 making some additional averments, The list so produced by the respondents showed that in all 121 admissions were effected. The list has given separate categories about reservations and has mentioned the names of the applicants admitted under each category. Prasanna has prepared a statement on the basis of the list and by Civil Application No. 1537 of 1980, he wants that the said statements should be attached as Annexures E and F to the main petition. In Annexure E he was shown that instead of original 60 seats, in all 79 candidates were allotted as per the various categories mentioned in the prospectus, As the seats have been increased, there is consequential increase in some of the categories. For example, 23 admission were allotted for old Madhya Pradesh instead of 14, while 46 admissions of open competition instead of 28, In Annexure -E Prasanna has thereafter given brake -up of the remaining 40 seats as follows: 4 Wards of Nagpur University Employees.6 Bombay University.3 Poona '2 Shivaji '3 Marathwada '1 Madras '6 Scheduled Castes4 Scheduled Tribes3 Nomadic Tribes5 Other Backward classes1 Political Suffer__40 Prasanna has also filed Civil Application No. 1546 of 1960 challenging the formation of the above -mentioned Categories and allotment of seats for each of these categories. In Annexure -E (sought to be produced by Civil Application No. 1537 of 1979), Prasanna has stated that these students having marks less than him, have been allotted from Madhya Pradesh and that 4 seats from Jammu and Kashmir were admitted though they had secured marks less than him. There is another statement in Annexure -F that 11 students (as mentioned in that Annexure) from the categories of scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and nomadic tribes were admitted though they had accured marks less than Prasanna. Thus Prasanna has challenged the creation of new categories (including the one meant for the Wards of the University employees). His contention is that the L. I. T is bound to admit the students as per the categories mentioned in the prospectus and that the said institution is stopped from altering or adding to the categories to the prejudice of Prasanna. Prasanna has also alleged that on the increase of seats from 60 to 121, there should have been proportionate increase of seats under each of the categories. He wants to state that in the prospectus there were 28 general seats and that they should have been increased to 56, He has also alleged in Civil Application No, 1548 of 1980 that the reservation for the categories as mentioned in the original prospectus and also as subsequently effected is liable to be struck downs as it is excessive reservation.;