Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 24.9.2002 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to give admission to the petitioner in M.Sc. (Chemistry) Previous for the Session 2002 -2003.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows: The petitioner, who is member of Scheduled Caste category, completed his B.Sc. degree from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer as regular student of S.B. Kothari Government College, Jaisalmer in the year 2002 and obtained 1247 marks out of 2025 marks, which is 62 per cent marks. Thus, the petitioner secured first division in B.Sc. and a copy of the mark -sheet of B.Sc. is marked as Annex. 1. The respondent No. 1 Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur (for short "the University") has issued the prospects for admission in various classes for the Session of 2002 -2003. In this sequence, Science Faculty for admission in M.Sc. (Chemistry) published 40 seats in previous M.Sc. (Chemistry) and the categorization of the seats is as under: Scheduled Caste Students 6 Scheduled Tribes Students 5 Other Backward Classes 8 General candidates 19 Handicapped 1 Sports 1 Total: 40 For 40 seats, applications were invited by the respondent No. 1 University. The petitioner being desirous of getting degree of M.Sc. submitted his application with full particulars and documents in the office of the respondent No. 3 Dean, Faculty of Science before due date i.e. 2.8.2002, in the category of Scheduled Caste candidate. The further case of the petitioner is that after scrutiny, a list was published on the Notice Board showing the names of students, who were found eligible for counselling which was to be held on 2.8.2002 and in the list of counselling, the name of petitioner stood at serial No. 2 in the waiting list. According to the petitioner, some students were absent on 2.8.2002 and when absentee students raised objections, the respondent No. 1 University, re -organised the counselling for 7.8.2002, but on that day, counselling did not take place and it was postponed for 13.8.2002. The further case of the petitioner is that on 13.8.2002, re -counselling was made in which the petitioner and other students participated, but the list of selected candidates was changed and the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 6 of the waiting list. The further case of the petitioner is that on 13.8.2002, some students were not present and thus, the counselling was again declared to be held on 19.8.2002 and 26.8.2002. Since one Vinod Chouhan was not present and two students of Scheduled Caste category went in M.Sc. (Botany), therefore, two seats were left open for the students of Scheduled Caste category, but the respondents deliberately did not give admission to the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. The main grounds taken by the petitioner in this writ petition are as follows: (i) That the action of the respondents in not giving admission to the petitioner in M.Sc. (Previous) (Chemistry) tantamounts to hostile discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That since the petitioner participated in the counselling on all occasions, but due to absence of other students, the petitioner was harassed to appear in counselling time and again and thus, he was eligible for admission in M.Sc. (Previous) (Chemistry). A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents, in which preliminary objections were taken by them in the following manner: (i) That in academic matters, the petitioner should not be allowed to invoke extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That apart from this, the petitioner has not pleaded violation of any law or rules while considering the applications for admission by the University and, therefore, in absence of that, the petitioner cannot seek remedy of admission under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (iii) That in admission matters, the decision of the Expert Committee should not lightly be interfered with unless there is malafide on the part of the respondents and this mala fide has not been alleged or proved by the petitioner in this case and thus, from this point of view also, this writ petition is not maintainable. On merits, it was submitted by the respondents that a provisional list was published on 2.8.2002, a copy of which is marked as Annex. R/2 and in that list, the name of the petitioner stood at serial No. 2 in waiting list. However, because of the grievances made by the students against the counselling which took place on 2.8.2002, a Committee of two Teachers was constituted by the respondent No. 3 Dean, Faculty of Science on 3.8.2002 and in the meanwhile, the admissions for four students were kept in abeyance. The said Committee examined the record of entire admission process and thereafter, submitted a report to the Vice -Chancellor. The Vice -Chancellor directed to revise and notify a fresh waiting list of candidates according to merit, which should include all the names of candidates who stood below the last admitted applicant in each category. The further case of the respondents was that a fresh list was issued by the University and the petitioner stood at serial No. 6 of revised waiting list for Schedule Caste candidates of M.Sc. Previous -I Semester Chemistry, a copy of which is marked as Annex. R/3. Since the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Caste category, therefore, he was not considered for admission in general category. As the petitioner stood at serial No. 6 in the waiting list and the admissions were given upto Ashok Pangi, who stood at serial No. 3 of the waiting list, therefore, there were two more students at serial Nos. 4 and 5 before the petitioner and since they have not been given admission, giving of admission to the petitioner does not arise at all. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. A rejoinder to the reply was filed by the petitioner on 29.10.2002. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, some thing should be said about the scope of interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India especially while dealing with education matters.;