- (1.) THIS writ petition under Arts. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India was filed in this court by the above-named petitioner in the matter of Arts. 14,16, 19, 21, 29 & 30 of the Constitution read with Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 and Rajasthan Prisoners (Shortening of Sentence) Rules, 1958 and in the matter of Rajasthan Prisons Rules, 1951 amended in 1968.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner who is a resident of District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, was allegedly involved in an incident on 18. 5. 1979 for which an F. I. R. was registered against him for offence under S. 302/148 I. P. C. THE petitioner was arrested on 25. 5. 1979 and after completing the investigation police filed a charge-sheet in the court for trial. After trial Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu found the petitioner guilty of offence of murder under S. 302/148 IPC and convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the said offence in Sessions Case No. 21/1979 to life imprisonment. Feeling aggrieved against his conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal vide D. B. Criminal (Jail) Appeal No. 144/80 which was dismissed by this court on 17. 07. 1980. THEre after the petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 17. 7. 1980 before Hon'ble Supreme Court which too was dismissed. The petitioner in this petition has contended that he has undergone actual sentence of 14 years, 4 months and 20 days as on 31. 1. 1994. The petitioner passed his secondary examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in Ist Division in the year 1979. Thereafter the petitioner passed higher secondary examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer in the year 1981 in Ist Division while serving his sentence in Jail. He passed his B. A. examination from M. L. Sukhadiya University, Udaipur in 1984 in II Division and thereafter the petitioner passed his M. A. in Economics from Kota Open University in the year 1988. The petitioner also passed B. A. with additional English subject in the year 1990 from the Rajasthan University, Jaipur. Thereafter he also passed M. A. in Sociology from the Rajasthan University in 1991 and he also passed M. A. in English Literature in the year 1993. Thereafter the petitioner passed Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication from Kota Open University in Ist Division. All these examinations, referred to above, were passed by the petitioner while serving his sentence in jail. It has been further contended that for the academic year 1993-94 respondent No. 5, i. e. , Officer-in-Charge P. T. E. T. 1993 Meharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer invited application from the prospective candidates to appear in Pre-Teacher's Education Test (for short 'ptet') and the petitioner being eligible candidate submitted his application for appearing in the said test. The petitioner had preferred writ petition No. 275/93 earlier before the Apex Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for his release on parole so as to enable him to appear in PTET and the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow the petition on 29. 7. 1993 and released the petitioner on parole so as to enable him to appear in the said test vide Annexure 1. It was keeping in view the academic career of the petitioner which may not suffer that the aforesaid order was passed by the Apex Court. Apex Court directed that the period of parole will be for the duration of the said examination plus another 3 days to enable the petitioner to return and surrender. In pursuance of the above-direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court the petitioner appeared in PTET and was declared successful. The petitioner was allotted S. S. G. Pareek T. T. College, Jaipur for training vide order Annexure 2 for PTET of 1993 (B. Ed.) and as per the mark-sheet the petitioner qualified the said examination. In pursuance of the above, the petitioner received provisional admission card dated 11. 10. 1993 from respondent No. 5 in pursuance of which the petitioner was directed to deposit fee for admission to the said course in the college upto 21. 10. 1993 and the petitioner complied with the said requirement by depositing the requisite fee in the office of respondent No. 5 vide Annexure 3. Soon thereafter the petitioner immediately submitted a representation to I. G. Prisons (respondent No. 2), Rajasthan Jaipur on 11. 10. 1993 requesting him to allow the petitioner to deposit his fee in person along with relevant documents so as to comply with the conditions stipulated in the provisional admission-card dated 11. 10. 1993, vide Annexure 4. It was contended that the petitioner received information from a reliable source that his aforesaid representation to I. G. Prisons dated 11. 10. 1993 was rejected by the said authority with no formal communication of the rejected order. Thereafter the petitioner also sent a registered letter to the Principal S. S. G. Pareek T. T. College, Jaipur (respondent No. 4) narrating complete facts and circumstances in detail requesting him that in the event of the petitioner's failure to deposit fee in person in time as per notification published in Dainik Navjyoti dated 11. 10. 1993, a seat be reserved for the petitioner and time for depositing fee be extended in his case but no reply was received by the petitioner in this regard from respondent No. 4 vide Annexure 5. Simultaneously the petitioner also sent a representation to respondent No. 4 through Jail authorities on 15. 10. 1993 vide Annex. 6. It was further contended that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner was accorded permission by the jail authorities to deposit fee in person on 25. 10. 1993 accompanied by the jail guard but the Principal, S. S. G. Pareek T. T. College, Jaipur for reasons best known to him had declined to accept the fee from the petitioner by putting a remark on his provisional admission card that last date for depositing the fee was 21. 10. 1993 which had since expired. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioner by Shri Alok Sharma that no twith standing the brilliant academic attainments of the petitioner, the admission of the petitioner to PTET was arbitrarily denied by the respondents resulting in irreparable loss and injury and also seriously violating the petitioner's fundamental right to Education guaranteed under Arts. 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India besides violating his right to life and liberty under Art. 21 of the Constitution which includes right to receive education in any subject of his choice for which the petitioner was fully qualified and eligible. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments further contended that the petitioner is a triple M. A. along with triple other degrees having obtained highest academic qualifications as stated above and that he passed all his examinations while in jail. It was further contended that the petitioner was released on parole under the orders of Apex Court so as to enable the petitioner to appear in the PTET and other examination.
(3.) LOOKING to the qualifications, academic attainments and the conduct of the petitioner which was excellent in jail throughout, I am of the view that the petitioner should have been allowed to deposit his fee in the S. S. G. College in time and as a result of the objections raised by the respondents, academic career of the petitioner has seriously suffered. By way of an analogy learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an identical case of one prisoner Tarachand which was recommended by the State Government to the Registrar, M. L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur whereby necessary permission was granted by the concerned authorities to the said prisoner to change his college at Jaipur so as to enable him to undergo the necessary training. It was contended that said Tarachand filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4287 of 1989 before this court and the said petition was allowed by the court which helped the said petitioner to complete his necessary training (Annex. 7 ). In this context it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner ought not to have been discriminated by the respondents and as a result of the said discrimination the academic career of the petitioner had been adversely affected thus violating petitioner's right to equality before the law and equal protection of laws as guaranteed under Art. 14 and right to receive education in subject of his choice as per petitioner's qualifications under Art. 29 of the Constitution of India. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to deposit his fee within time and by depriving the petitioner to appear in PTET has resulted in violation of Arts. 14 & 29 of the Constitution of India, since the petitioner has been deprived admission to B. Ed. course. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to another identical case of one Sumer Singh who was serving sentence at Open Camp Sanganer, Jaipur, was permitted to undergo training of B. Ed, presently whereas the petitioner who is similarly placed candidate has not been permitted the facility of undergoing necessary training for B. Ed. Course which has resulted in gross discrimination to the petitioner. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted a detailed representation to respondent No. 4, Principal, S. S. G. Pareek T. T. College, Jaipur through jail authorities and also to I. G. Prison on 18. 10. 1993 and on 11. 10. 1993 narrating therein all facts and circumstances of the case. It was further contended that the respondents who had allowed the petitioner to deposit fee on 25. 10. 93 could very well have permitted the petitioner to deposit the fee in advance well before the due date and the situation had resulted only on account of inaction of the respondents for no fault of the petitioner. It was stated that the petitioner has already undergone 14 years, 4 months and 20 days of actual sentence as he was arrested on 25. 5. 1979 and therefore, he was held entitled for release on 25. 5. 1993 after serving more than 14 years' actual sentence under the Prisoners' Release and Parole Rules, 1958. It was submitted that as per the Prisons Rules, 1951 and amended Rules of 1968, a prisoner is permitted to continue his education at any school, college, polytechnic or in any other educational institution run by the Government or by any University established under the Act. In reply to the writ petition the respondents have controverted the stand of the petitioner by contending that the petitioner has only undergone sentence of 13 years, 10 months and 11 days upto 31. 1. 1994. The respondents have further contended in their reply that PTET course is a regular one and under rule 26a of Part-X section (ii) of the Rajasthan Prisoners Rules, 1951, a prisoner who is more than 21 years of age cannot be permitted to continue his study at any school/college or in other educational institution as a regular student, hence permission was not granted to the petitioner to join B. Ed. Course as a regular student since he was more than 21 years of age. However, in reply to para 6 of the writ petition the respondents have taken a specific stand in favour of the petitioner by admitting that the petitioner had appeared in PTET and after having been declared successful in PTET was allowed for training in S. S. G. Pareek T. T. College, Jaipur but since the M. D. University, Ajmer has not permitted the petitioner to join B. Ed. Course in terms of its letter dated 4/5. 11. 1993, the petitioner could not be given admission for the same. In para 8 of the reply the respondents have further admitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation to respondent No. 2 on 11. 10. 1993 seeking permission to deposit fee in B. Ed. College in person and necessary permission was granted to the petitioner to deposit the fee on 21. 10. 1993 vide Annexure R/2. In the same breath the respondents have placed reliance upon Rule 26a of Part X of S. (ii) of Rajasthan Prisoners Rules, 1951 by taking a plea that since the petitioner was more than 21 years of age as on the relevant date, he could not be permitted to continue his studies as a regular student in any educational institution of his choice and it was for this reason that permission was declined to the petitioner to join B. Ed. Course which was available only to the regular students. The respondents have further controverted the stand of the petitioner that the denial of admission to the petitioner to join B. Ed. Course as a regular student in S. S. G. Pareek College, Jaipur does not amount to any discrimination under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India nor it is violative of his fundamental right to receive education under Art. 29 of the Constitution from any recognized institution. ;