Vice-chancellor, Aligarh Muslim University and ors. Vs. Nishit Sharma (Minor) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- janardan sahai and rakesh sharma, jj.1. this is an appeal against the order of learned single judge allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent nishit sharma. the dispute relates to admission to class xi, science stream of aligarh muslim university.2. the petitioner respondent in this appeal appeared in the open entrance test examination but was not selected. the petitioner then applied for admission in the discretionary quota of the vice-chancellor available in respect of candidates of s.m. (for outstanding sports man) and for c.a. (children of alumini). the petitioner was not selected in the s.m. category. in the c.a. category other persons were nominated by the vice-chancellor but not the petitioner and the petitioner could not be admitted under that category either. the petitioner then filed writ petition giving rise to this special appeal. the petitioner's case is that in the c.a. category, he was higher up in the merit list but he was not granted admission and the quota was given to other students lower in the merit list.3. in order to appreciate the point involved in the case, it is necessary to refer to the academic council's decision dated 31.1.1991 which lays down the criteria for admission in the senior secondary school certification examination (class xi and xii). the following is the extract from the resolution of the academic council:mode of admission:(i) 27% of the candidates will be admitted on the basis of general merit at the competitive admission test;(it) 27% internal candidates will be admitted on the basis of the merit of the competitive admission test;(iii) 20% candidates will be admitted on the basis of the merit of the competitive admission test from amongst the educationally backward section of our society as identified in the national educational policy, 1986.those candidates who have passed/appeared at the high school examination, 1992 from the a.m.u., aligarh.since 1986, the muslims and neo-buddhists have been identified and declared educationally deprived and backward class of minorities (prime minister's 15 point programme). the government policy intends to make special efforts to bring these educationally backward minorities at par with the rest of the society. the government, therefore, came out with the national policy on education (1986) identifying these communities as the most educationally backward communities.(iv) 6% candidates will be admitted on the basis of the merit of the competitive admissions test, belonging to educational backward regions of our country; and(v) 20% candidates will be nominated by the vice chancellor out of the categories belonging to: (1) children of the university employees, (2) children of alumni/alumna, (3) children of government servants recently transferred (within 12 months, preceding in the closing date of the candidates application form posted submitted); (4) children from distant states/union territories not adjoining u.p. (i.e., other than bihar, haryana, himachal pradesh, madhya pradesh, rajasthan and delhi); (5) outstanding sports persons; (6) outstanding speakers; (7) s.c./s.t. and backward class and (8) physically handicapped.the vice-chancellor will make nominations on the basis of the cut-off point for each competitive admission test. ordinarily, the cut-off point will be the marks obtained by the last candidate at the competitive test, where the total number of the intake of the stream concerned. (for example, if the intake is 200, the cut-off point will be marks of 500th candidates on the basis of the merit list).4. special powers of the vice-chancellor regarding nomination which have been approved by the academic council earlier will remain valid also for nomination to this course.5. it is pertinent to note that clause v of the decision (last portion) refers to special powers of the vice-chancellor regarding nomination, which have been approved by the academic council earlier and it is provided that those will remain valid also for nomination to this course.6. counsel for the university was, however, unable to produce any earlier resolution conferring special powers on the vice-chancellor.7. the submission made by sri shashi nandan, senior counsel who appeared for the university is that 20% quota mentioned at clause v is in the discretion of the vice-chancellor and it is at the sweet will of the vice-chancellor to nominate any person who falls in the category. elaborating his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant university submitted that while clauses i, ii, iii and iv refer to merit as the criteria for admission in the categories referred therein, clause v, which contains amongst other categories the category children of alumni does not contain any criteria regarding merit. we do not find any merit in this contention. it appears that discretion, which is provided by clause v, is in respect of inter se quota in the special categories mentioned in clause v. the university has annexed as annexure-1, table 2 (ii) which refers to about 10 special categories. the discretion which appears to have been conferred upon the vice-chancellor in clause v is in respect of fixation of the inter se quota in the special categories in that clause for neither clause v nor the table contains the inter se quota for such categories. it appears that the vice-chancellor has been given discretion to determine how many students in each of these special categories would be admitted. but within the category itself the rule of merit has to be followed by the vice-chancellor, otherwise the discretion of the vice-chancellor would be arbitrary and violative of article 14 of the constitution. learned counsel for the respondent relied upon suman gupta and ors. v. state of j.&k.;, : air 1983 sc 1235 and t.m.a. pat foundation u. state of karnataka 2002 scc 481 para 161: 2002 (4) awc 3297 (sc). in suman gupta's case the supreme court observed:in matters of choosing candidates for nomination to seats reserved in medical colleges of other states, there is no absolute power vested in the state governments. it is incumbent on the state government to adopt a criterion or restrict its power by reference to norms which, while designed to achieve its object, nevertheless confine the flow of that power within constitutional limits. it cannot be said that an adequate system of standards cannot be devised for that purpose. tested on the touchstone of out constitutional values, the claim of the state government to the content of the power assumed by it must be declared invalid....it cannot be contended that the selection of candidates must remain in the unlimited discretion and the uncontrolled choice of the state government. the exercise of all administrative power vested in public authority must be structured within a system of controls informed by both relevance and reason-relevance in relation to the object which it seeks to serve, and reason in regard to the manner in which it attempts to do so. wherever the exercise of such power affects individual rights, there can be no greater assurance protecting its valid exercise than its governance by these twin tests.8. the view taken by the learned single judge, therefore, appears to be correct.9. we do not find any merit in this appeal hence dismissed.