Yashoda Nandan, J. - (1.) The petitioner Anupam Srivastava, claims to have passed his Intermediate Science Examination from the Government intermediate College. Allahabad, securing 66% marks. He also having secured a First Division in tie High School Examination asserts entitlement to 2% grace marks for admission to the B.Sc. First Year Agricultural Engineering Course run by the Allahabad Agriculture Institute (Respondent No. 1) hereinafter refined to as the Institute.
(2.) The petitioner applied for admission to the B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering Course at the Institute on the 26th June, 1979 for the academic session 1979-80 but was refused admission. By means of this petition h" prays for a writ of mandamus directing the Principal of the Institute to admit him to B Sc. Agricultural Engineering course and for issue of any other suitable writ order or direction as this court may deem if and proper in the circumstances of the case. The reliefs prayed for are primarily based on the contentions that the University of Allahabad, of which the Institute is an Associated College, had issued criteria for admission to the B.Sc Agriculture and B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering courses at the Institute in exercise of powers under Section 28(4) of the U. P. State Universities Act but in disregard of such instructions the institute had admitted many students who hid inherit as compared to the petitioners simply because they were Christians. The petitioner has filed a chart shewing the name and mark obtained by such candidates in the Intermediate class who were admitted though they had secured hers marks than him. The further contention of the petitioner is that the reservation of seats in favour of Indian Christians who were less meritorious than him and who had secured admission to the B.Sc. Agricultural Engineering course) by the Institute was in disregard to Article 29(2) of the Constitution.
(3.) It has not been disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Institute that a number of Indian Christias have have admitted in preference to the petitioner though on merits they had secured less marks at the Intermediate Examination than the petitioner. The petitioner's claims have been resisted on the pleas that the institute is a minority institution within the meaning of At tide 30(1) of the Constitution and it was entitled to regulate its procedure in the matter of admission of students in spite of the requirements of Article 29(2) of the Constitution It has further been contended on behalf of the Institute that the alleged criteria for admission of students to the University had no application to the students of the Institute and in any evert was received by it after the admission of the students for the academic session 1979-80 had been completed. A nun her of preliminary objectors have been raised by the learned counsel representing the Institute. It has been contended that, in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. We shall first consider the preliminary objections raised because, in our opinion, some of them are sound and consequently the legal and constitutional questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not in the instant case, need any discussion.;