Dismissed

Swati Chakraborti v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Aug 2016WPC/2022/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Rule 2.6.1(l) of MTech/MBA admission rules barring those who failed to pass qualifying exams even while awaiting supplementary results. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the rule was not arbitrary and served a legitimate purpose of maintaining merit.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Rule 2.6.1(l) declared legal and impermissible to quash.

Swati Chakraborti Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPC No. 2022 of 2016

¶5

Swati Chakraborti D/o Shri P. K. Chakarborti, Aged About 22 Years R/o Qtr. No. 5/B, Street No.24, Sector 1 Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

Roshni Patel D/o Janak Patel, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village And Post Office Chandrakhuri, District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

Director, Directorate Of Technical Education (DTE), HOD Building Block-3, 3rd & 4th Floor Indrawati Bhavan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

¶11

Vice Chancellor, Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

¶12

Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Through Its Registrar North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai District Durg, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

University Grants Commission, Through its Secretary, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi.

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

For Petitioners Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri R.K. Mishra, Dy. Adv. General For Respondent No.3 Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent No.4 Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate

¶16

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶18

Order On Board

¶19

11/08/2016

¶20

In this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners would pray for quashment of clause 2.6.1 (l) of the Chhattisgarh Technical Institution Admission Rules, 2016-17 (henceforth 'the Rules, 2016-17') for admission in M.E./M.Tech., M. Pharma. and MBA Courses (Annexure-P-1).

¶21

The petitioners have appeared in final year BCA examination from Swami Shri Swaroopananda Saraswati Mahavidyalaya, HUDCO, Bhilai, however, they could not pass the examination on account of having failed to secure the minimum pass mark in one subject and, are thus, compelled to write supplementary/compartment examination scheduled to be held in the month of September-October, 2016. In the meanwhile, the petitioners have appeared in the competitive examination for being admitted in the MBA course under the Rules 2016-17, however, they are not eligible to be admitted in the MBA course in view of the provisions contained in Rule 2.6.1 (l) of the Rules, 2016-17, which is reproduced hereunder :-

¶22

¶23

2.6.1 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk

¶24

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶25

¼l½ ,e-ch-,- ikB~;Øe gsrq

¶26

,e-ch-,- ikB~;Øe esa izos'k ds fy, mEehnokj dks ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky;@laLFkk ls fdlh ekU;rk izkIr ladk;@fo”k; esa 3 o”khZ; Lukrd mikf/k vFkok 5 o”khZ; baVhxzsVsM mikf/k vukjf{kr oxZ ds fy;s de ls de 50 izfr'kr izkIrkadksa ,oa NRrhlx<+ ds vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ rFkk fu %'kDrrk ls ckf/kr (SC,ST,OBC,PWD) ds fy;s 45 izfr'kr izkIrkadks ds lkFk mRrh.kZ gksuk vfuok;Z gS A dkmaflfyax ¼nLrkost ijh{k.k½ dh frfFk dks vuqRrh.kZ vFkok iwjd@dEikVZesaV vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izos'k dh ik=rk ugha jgsxh A

¶27

Vhi%&1 ;fn izfr'kr iw.kkZad esa u gks rks 49-5 ;k mlls mij dks 50 rFkk 44-5 ;k mlls mij dks 45 izfr'kr ekU; fd;k tk;sxk A

¶28

Shri Uttam Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would argue that if the petitioners clear the supplementary examination in September-October, 2016 but they are denied admission in the MBA course, due to the impugned clause their entire academic year would be wasted, therefore, the Rule 2.6.1 (l) of the Rules, 2016-17 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

¶30

Per contra, Shri Ramakant Mishra, learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State and Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4- CSVTU would oppose the writ petition.

¶31

It is settled law that a particular provision or delegated legislation or the rules having force of law in form of executive instructions cannot be declared as arbitrary or illegal merely because it operates harshly against a particular individual.

¶32

If the petitioners' contention is allowed and they are granted admission despite having not cleared the qualified examination and ultimately they fail in supplementary examination, the seats alloted to them would be wasted and the meritorious candidates who are otherwise qualified and eligible would be denied admission. Even if any seat is vacant for want of qualified candidate, the candidate who is not eligible as per rules cannot be granted admission because seats are vacant.

¶33

To declare a particular set of rules or any provision thereof as violative of Article 14, the same has to appear illogical or perverse to the extent that a man of ordinary prudence would not construe the provision to be a sound legislative device. The rule has an object sought to be achieved

¶34

¶35

inasmuch as a student who is not qualified for admission into the MBA course is not granted admission, therefore, it cannot be branded as irrational or without prudence.

¶36

For the foregoing, this Court finds it impermissible to declare the said part of the rule i.e. Rule 2.6.1 (l) of the Rules, 2016-17 as illegal or arbitrary. Accordingly the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶37

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra

¶40

Gowri

Swati Chakraborti v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swati Chakraborti v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shree Shyam Sponge and Power Ltd. Vs Union Of India

Devi Iron and Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union Of India

Maa Danteshwari Decorators And Tent House Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Disha Institute Of Management and Technology Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Krishna Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.andORS.

Mamta Dhruw Vs Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation . Ltd. and Ors.