S.K.Singh, J. - (1.) Prayer in this petition is for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter/order of the respondents dated 1.8.2002 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), by which claim of the petitioner for admission in B.A. Part I under the Freedom Fighter quota has been rejected.
(2.) The fact as has come on the record can be summarised thus- For taking admission in various Graduation courses Allahabad University, hereinafter referred to as the University, conducted Under-graduate Admission Test, 2002. A brochure was also published mentioning various requirements and criteria which was to be adhered in the aforesaid test. A bridge Admission Rules was also published, copy of which has been brought on record alongwith counter affidavit. Petitioner claims to have appeared in the aforesaid test for taking admission in B.A. Part I as General candidate under Freedom Fighter quota. Petitioner secured 92 marks but she was not given admission. Petitioner earlier also came to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 23629 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court on 30.7.2002. It was directed that in the event petitioner approaches respondents and satisfies about his rights as dependant of freedom fighter, she will be given admission. Pursuant to the direction of this Court petitioner approached respondents and filed documents establishing her to be the dependant of freedom fighter upon which the impugned letter/order dated 1.8.2002 came into existence which made the petitioner aggrieved to come up to this Court.
(3.) Sri R.K.S. Chauhan, learned Advocate who appears for the petitioner submits that earlier respondents have refused admission to the petitioner on the pretext that petitioner do not come within the category of dependant of freedom fighter and therefore, on the direction given by this Court petitioner has filed required documents but now the respondents on the plea that the petitioner has not secured required 34% marks i.e. 102 marks rather she has secured 92 marks, denied admission. It is further submitted that petitioner having been proved to be dependant of freedom fighter, 2% seats under the said quota being available in which petitioner could have been admitted, but the respondents having been annoyed on account of filing of earlier writ petition on a wholly arbitrary premises rejected the petitioner's claim. Learned Counsel submits that respondents are bound to give admission to the petitioner in accordance with the reservation policy as has been provided by the State Government. It is further pointed out that action of the respondents in giving reservation in favour of the wards of the staff of University is clearly illegal as all kinds of reservation has to be confined upto the extent of 50%. Learned Counsel submits that this kind of concession and reservation to the wards of the staff of the University has been dis-approved by the decision as has been given by this Court as well as by the Apex Court. He has referred to the decision as has been given by the Apex Court in the case of Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE), 1990 v. Osiris Das and Ors., reported in 1992 ESC 143, and decision given by this Court in the case of Ganga Prasad Yadav v. Allahabad Agriculture Institute and Ors., reported in AIR 1995 Alld. 266. Other decision which has been referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that reservation cannot exceed more than 50% even in minority institutions has been given in case of Shashank Chaudhary v. Ganga Prasad Yadav, as has been reported in (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1097.;