ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, BTC COURSE, ADMISSION : बीटीसी कोर्स में डायट द्वारा भेजे गए छात्रों का प्रवेश लेने का निर्देश दिया है और कहा है कि बची हुई सीटें नियमानुसार कालेज अपनी मर्जी से भर सकेंगे, क्लिक कर कोर्ट का आदेश देखें ।

ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT, BTC COURSE, ADMISSION : बीटीसी कोर्स में डायट द्वारा भेजे गए छात्रों का प्रवेश लेने का निर्देश दिया है और कहा है कि बची हुई सीटें नियमानुसार कालेज अपनी मर्जी से भर सकेंगे, क्लिक कर कोर्ट का आदेश देखें ।

इलाहाबाद । इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने बख्शी टीचर्स टेनिंग इंस्टीट्यूट जुनैद पट्टी, फूलपुर व सिटिजन गल्र्स कालेज बलरामपुर नैनी इलाहाबाद को बीटीसी कोर्स में डायट द्वारा भेजे गए छात्रों का प्रवेश लेने का निर्देश दिया है और कहा है कि बची हुई सीटें नियमानुसार कालेज अपनी मर्जी से भर सकेंगे।

यह आदेश न्यायमूर्ति अश्वनी कुमार मिश्र ने कुमारी रुचि सिंह व सिटिजन गल्र्स कालेज की याचिकाओं को निस्तारित करते हुए दिया है। याची का कहना है कि पिछड़ा वर्ग कोर्ट में उसे 206.85 अंक मिले हैं। महिला साइंस की कट ऑफ मार्क 204.68 अंक है। उसने 21 सितंबर 16 को 41 हजार रुपये फीस और मूल पत्रवली जमा कर काउन्सिलिंग में हिस्सा लिया। बाद में बताया गया प्राइवेट कालेजों की 1700 सीटें कम कर 1600 कर दी गई है इसलिए मेरिट 233.50 हो गई है। याची को कालेज ने प्रवेश देने से इन्कार कर दिया जिस पर यह याचिका दाखिल की गई। 14 जून 16 को दोनों कालेज अल्पसंख्यक घोषित हो गए। कोर्ट ने स्पष्ट कर दिया है कि इन छात्रों का प्रवेश लिया जाय। जो पहले से प्रवेश पा चुके हैं वे कायम रहेंगे।

डायट के प्राचार्य ने इन दोनों अल्पसंख्यक कालेजों में 27 छात्रों के बीटीसी कोर्स में प्रवेश की सूची भेजी थी जिसमें केवल नौ छात्र सिटिजन कालेज में प्रवेश लेने के लिए आए, छह छात्र बख्शी इंस्टीट्यूट चले गए। कोर्ट ने नौ छात्रों को प्रवेश के लिए अधिकृत करते हुए कहा है कि कालेज ने जिन दूसरे छात्रों का प्रवेश ले लिया है, वे भी संरक्षित रहेंगे। कोर्ट ने यह आदेश दोनों पक्षों की सहमति से पारित किया है।

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46940 of 2016

Petitioner :- Km. Ruchi Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pratik Chandra,Praneet Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Himanshu Rai,Mahendra Kumar Shukla,Mata Achal Mishra,Shailendra

And
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 52374 of 2016

Petitioner :- Citizen Girls College And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailendra,Himanshu Rai,Mr. Umesh Narain Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
1. These two petitions have been heard together, and are being disposed by this common judgment.
2. Writ Petition No.46940 of 2016 has been filed by Km. Ruchi Singh, with the allegation that she had applied for admission to B.T.C. course, and had secured 206.85 marks in the admission test. Petitioner claims to be belonging to OBC category. It is stated that last cut off mark for OBC female (Science) category was 204.68. It is stated that she appeared in the counselling on 21.9.2016, and also deposited the entire fee, but she was not allotted any institution, and was asked to come again on the next date. It is claimed that when she went again, she was informed that OBC female (Science) merit has increased to 233.50, and consequently, she is ineligible for grant of admission.
3. The writ petition was entertained. The respondent State Authorities brought on record that minority status was since granted to two institutions namely Bakshi Teachers' Training Institute, Junaid Patti, Phulpur, Allahabad, and Citizen Girls College, Balrampur, Naini, Allahabad, for which communication got received during the counselling on 20th September, 2016, as such the total available seats to be filled in the district for private colleges was brought down from 1700 to 1600, and consequently, merit increased. It is also stated that these two institutions were to be treated as minority institution, and therefore, admission was to be undertaken by them from the students, who had appeared in counselling on the basis of their respective merit by the institution itself. All such facts were noticed by this Court, and a detailed interim order came to be passed on 6.10.2016, which reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead (1) Bakshi Teachers' Training Institute, Junaid Patti, Phulpur, Allahabad through its Principal and (2) Citizen Girls College, Balrampur, Naini, Allahabad through its Principal as respondent nos. 5 and 6, respectively, in the array of the parties.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Issue notice to the respondent nos. 5 and 6.
Four weeks' time is allowed to the respondents to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List on 24 November 2016.
The petitioner applied for B.T.C. (Training) 2015 pursuant to Government Order dated 14 June 2016 and Advertisement issued thereafter, under O.B.C. (Female) Science Category and obtained quality point marks 206.85 against the cut off mark 204.68. The petitioner appeared for counselling, her original mark sheets and fee of Rs. 41,000/- was deposited, however, her allotment was cancelled for the reason that the institutions of fifth and sixth respondent were declared minority institutions by the State Government by communication dated 20 September 2016 and 16 September 2016, respectively, as such, hundred students were excluded from the counselling process on the last date of counselling i.e. 21 September 2016.
Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner and similarly situated students, who have already deposited their original mark sheets and fees, were allotted a college, therefore, such students cannot be deprived of admission merely because of the respondent institutions have been declared minority institution after commencement of the counselling process which admittedly, commenced on 14 June 2016. The respondent institutions cannot take benefit of the Government Order dated 6 June 2015 for the reason that the minority status was conferred on the last date, therefore, it is sought to be urged that these institutions can take benefit of being a minority institution for the subsequent session.
It is admitted by learned counsel for the State respondent that the aforementioned institutions were included in the counselling process before being declared a minority institution, however, upon the State declaring them a minority institution, the students despite being allotted seats in the said institutions were deleted, thus, reducing the seats to 1600 from 1700.
It is not in dispute that the fifth and sixth respondents were included in the counselling process and during the counselling process, that to on the last date were deleted, thus, jeopardizing the admission of large number of students.
Learned Standing Counsel, upon instruction, would submit that 64 students were allotted to the respondent institutions, of which, some students have been adjusted against the vacancy in some other colleges, however, 55 students as per their merit were allotted seats in either of the two institutions.
The submission requires consideration.
It is provided that all 55 students who have been allotted either of the respondent institutions by the counselling process shall continue with the training program in the aforementioned colleges. The institutions for the purposes of selection or benefit being conferred on minority institution pursuant to the Government Order dated 10 June 2015 shall accrue from Session 2016-17 but not for the current session 2015-16. The institutions, therefore, are restrained from admitting any students on their own for the academic session 2015-16."
4. It appears that the aforesaid interim order was assailed in Special Appeal No.711 of 2016 by one of the institutions i.e. Bakshi Teachers' Training Institute, which was dismissed, and the interim order was not interfered with. The order passed by Division Bench in special appeal on 4.11.2016 reads as under:-
"Bakhshi Teachers Training Institute, Junaid Patti Phulpur, Allahabad through its Principal Sushil Kumar Mishra is before this Court assailing the validity of the exparte interim order dated 6.10.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.46940 of 2016 (Km. Ruchi Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.), the relevant portion of which is reproduced as under:-
"It is provided that all 55 students who have been allotted either of the respondent institutions by the counselling process shall continue with the training program in the aforementioned colleges. The institutions for the purposes of selection or benefit being conferred on minority institution pursuant to the Government Order dated 10 June 2015 shall accrue from Session 2016-17 but not for the current session 2015-16. The institutions, therefore, are restrained from admitting any students on their own for the academic session 2015-16."
The record in question reflects that Km. Ruchi Singh, the petitioner in the writ petition in question had applied for BTC (Training) 2015 pursuant to Government Order dated 14th June, 2016 and advertisement issued thereafter, under OBC (Female) Science Category and obtained quality point marks 206.85 against the cut off mark 204.68. She appeared for counselling, her original mark sheets and fee of Rs.41,000/- was deposited. However, consequently her allotment was cancelled for the reason that the appellant institution and Citizen Girls college, Balrampur, Naini, Allahabad, who have been arrayed as respondent nos.5 and 6 in the aforesaid writ petition subsequently, were declared minority institution by the State Government by communication dated 20th September, 2016 and 16th September, 2016 respectively and as such hundred students were excluded from the counselling process on the last date of counselling i.e. 21st September, 2016.
In this backdrop, Km. Ruchi Singh, the petitioner in the writ petition in question had approached this Court and submitted that she along with similarly situated students, who had already deposited their original mark sheets and fees, were allotted a college, therefore, such students cannot be deprived of admission merely because of the respondent institutions having been declared minority institution after commencement of the counselling process, which admittedly commenced on 14th June, 2016 and as such it had been prayed before the learned Single Judge that the institutions could not take the benefit of the Government Order dated 6th June, 2015 for the reason that the minority status was conferred on the last date and as such it had been urged before the learned Single Judge that these institutions can take benefit of being a minority institution for the subsequent sessions. Learned Single Judge has also proceeded to observe that both the institutions were included in the counselling process before being declared minority institution, and the students despite being allotted seats in the said institutions, their names were scored of and thus reducing the seats to 1600 from 1700. Learned Single Judge has also proceeded to mention that the respondent institutions were included in the counselling process and during the counselling process, that too on the last date were deleted, thus, jeopardizing the admission of large number of students.
This much is also reflected from the record that learned Standing Counsel has sought instructions and apprised to the Court that 64 students were allotted the respondent institutions, of which some students have been adjusted against the vacancy in some other colleges, however, 55 students as per their merit were allotted seats in either of the two institutions. Consequently, in these circumstances, learned Single Judge has passed the interim order in question.
In support of his submissions, Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the interim order is exparte order and on account of interim order learned Single Judge has restrained the appellant to admit 50 students in its institution in arbitrary manner without calling for any response from the institution in question. He further makes submissions that learned Single Judge had failed to realise the ground reality, wherein only a single candidate had approached to the Court for her relief and as such no relief was asked for any other incumbent. He further makes submission that the appellant institution has already proceeded to admit 50 meritorious students and the said exercise had been carried out strictly as per the Government Order dated 14.6.2016, which provides for detailed guidelines for inducting students in the minority institutions and at no point of time there was any deviation to that effect.
We have proceeded to examine the record in question and we find that learned Single Judge under the present circumstances had proceeded to observe that Km. Ruchi Singh, who had appeared for counselling and consequently she had proceeded to submit her original marksheet and fee of Rs.41,000/- but consequently her rights were forfeited on account of institution in question being declared minority institution and other similarly situated 55 students as per their own merit were also allotted seats in either of the two institutions. We are of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order impugned and as such at this stage there is no need to intervene in the matter.
Once the Court has declined to interfere in the matter, Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant lastly contended that an observation may be made that his stay vacation application, which has been filed in the the aforesaid writ petition be considered expeditiously. We are not aware of the roaster and pendency of the case before the court concerned and as such we cannot give any direction in this regard but the petitioner would have liberty to approach the Court concerned and press the urgency.
The special appeal is dismissed accordingly."
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders passed, the authorities proceeded to act in terms of directions issued, and 27 students each were allotted to the aforesaid institutions for being admitted to B.T.C. course. It is at this stage that the other institution namely Citizen Girls College has approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.52374 of 2016 contending that being a minority institution, it has already admitted students and the Principal, DIET i.e. the counselling authority has no right to allot 27 students to it. It is also contended that pursuant to the liberty granted by the authorities, the institution had advertised for admission on 21st September, 2016, and the entire seats have been filled up.
6. A short counter affidavit has been filed by learned Standing Counsel. The affidavit states that students have been allotted pursuant to the order dated 6.10.2016. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice that the counselling authority has informed that out of 27 students allotted for admission in the college concerned, only 09 students have come forward to avail it, including the petitioner Km. Ruchi Singh, and 06 students have reported in other institution. This status has been notified to exist till 17.11.2016. Although it is stated that subsequently some more students have come, but there is no detail available of any other student.
7. The two private institutions assert that competent authority to grant declaration of minority status is the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, which has already granted minority status to the institution concerned in the 2011 itself. Recognition to run the course has been allowed by NCTE on 28th May, 2015, and it is for the first year that B.T.C. course is being started in the institution. It is argued by Sri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner institution that once declaration had been granted by the appropriate authority i.e. the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, there exists no further requirement of a fresh declaration being granted by the State Government, and the letter dated 20th September, 2016 is not of much relevance, so far as grant of minority status to the institution is concerned. It is stated that the question as to whether jurisdiction to grant minority status vests with the National Commission or not, has been a subject matter of consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in National Commission For Minority Education Institutions Vs. Abhinawa Sewa Sansthan Mahavidyalaya and others, reported in 2015(11) ADJ 605. It has been held that the Commission exercises original jurisdiction also to grant such declaration as well as appellate powers in that regard. Paragraphs 11 to 15 of the judgment of the Division Bench reads as under:-
"11. In taking this view, we also draw sustenance from the principle emerging from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Governing Body of PAEM College vs. State of Jharkhand3. The appellants before the Supreme Court had sought to challenge an order passed by the Government of Jharkhand holding that a particular college was not a minority institution entitled to the protection of Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The High Court observed that the question that had to be decided by the Government was as to whether the institution was established by the minority community. The High Court observed that no adequate or conclusive material had been produced on the basis of which it could be held that the college had been established exclusively by a minority community. Adverting to the provisions of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 more particularly those contained in Section 11(f) and Section 12B, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
"From the above provisions, it is clear that the Commission has the power to decide all questions relating to the status of any institution as minority educational institution and declare its status as such. Moreover under Section 12B, where an authority established by the Central Government or any State Government has rejected the application for grant of minority status to any educational institution, the aggrieved person may appeal against such order of the authority to the Commission. The provisions contained in Section 11(f) of 2004 Act and Section 12B of the Amendment Act are, thus, wholesome provisions for deciding all questions relating to the status of any institution as minority educational institution and for declaration of such status."
The Supreme Court in its operative direction observed that if proceedings were initiated by the college before the Commission for declaration of its status as a minority educational institution, the Commission shall proceed to determine that question in accordance with law after furnishing a due opportunity to all the affected parties. This decision of the Supreme Court in fact indicates that the power to make a determination under Section 11(f) does vest in the Commission.
12. At this stage, it would also be necessary for the Court to note that the learned Single Judge had adverted to a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management Inter College Dharaon District Chandauli vs. State of U.P.4. That was a case where the State Government had sought to confer a minority status on a school and had constituted a Committee on the basis of which it assumed the power and authority to confer such status on the institution. The Division Bench in an appeal arising from a judgment of the learned Single Judge observed as follows:
"This appeal is taken up and summarily disposed of.
We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.C. Misra on the 13th of July, 2006.
While hearing the appeal we could not cross our first mental hurdle, which was the question whether the appeal should be given any serious thought at all or not.
The State Government has, by the impugned order dated the 9th of June, 2004 sought to confer a minority status on the school in question.
The society controlling the school was registered in 1947. It was always run as an open institution. Hindus became even a majority during the middle of the last century. Some interested parties hopelessly misconstrued the Constitution and prayed to the State Government for grant of minority status. It is not for any State Government to grant any minority status to any institution; not even the Parliament or State Legislature can do it. A minority institution has to grow by itself. Only a competent Court of law can declare such status.
The order of the State Government shows a complete misunderstanding of Article 30 of the Constitution. It appears to have constituted a Committee and on the basis of the report of the Committee, it took upon itself the power and authority to grant minority status with ''immediate effect' !
The matter is so hopelessly illegal that it is very difficult to explain how hopeless it is. The appeal is dismissed."
13. Evidently therefore, the provisions of Article 30 were being misused or abused for claiming minority status by persons who did not belong to a religious minority. We may only clarify that this judgment of the Division Bench does not specifically deal with the provisions of the Act. Moreover, any view expressed therein would necessarily have to give way to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the Governing Body (supra).
14. For these reasons, we allow the special appeal which has been filed by the Commission for the purpose of clarifying the true scope and ambit of its power. We disapprove of the statement of law which has been contained in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The special appeal shall be governed by the interpretation which has been placed in this judgment on the statement and ambit of the power which has been conferred.
15. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
8. Sri Sharma, therefore, contends that the interim order granted by this Court on 6.10.2016 proceeds on an incorrect assumption of fact and law that minority status is to be granted by the State Government, or that such declaration was granted on 20.9.2016 only, whereas it is the National Commission, which is the appropriate authority for the purpose, and such declaration stood granted in the year 2011 itself. Sri Sharma, however, submits that in the peculiar facts of the present case, he does not wish to join issues in this regard, and would respect the orders already passed on 6.10.2016, inasmuch as all those students out of 09 students, indicated in the counter affidavit, who alone have contacted the college, including Km. Ruchi Singh, would be offered admission by the college, provided other admissions already granted by the institution be protected.
9. Sri Mahendra Kumar Shukla, holding brief of Sri M.A. Mishra appearing for the other institution also states that those students, who have already approached the college, as is clear from page-14 of the short counter affidavit filed by the counselling authority, would be offered admission, upon same terms.
10. Since other students have not come forward with any claim, and a period of more than two months have expired since beginning of the course, it would be in the interest of justice not to rule on the issues raise and dispose off the matter in light of the undertaking given by the two minority institutions. This would protect the interest of the students, who have already opted to secure admission pursuant to order dated 6.10.2016 passed by this Court, as well as students already admitted by the minority institution.
11. Both the writ petition, consequently, stand disposed of providing that petitioner Km. Ruchi Singh and such other students, who have already contacted the two institutions, pursuant to allotment of seats by the Principal, DIET, who have been identified in the counter affidavit filed by Principal, DIET, till today, shall be granted admission by the college concerned, and other seats filled by the concerned minority institutions, in accordance with law, would stand protected. Since this order is being passed upon consent of the parties, as such, it would not be treated as a binding precedent.
Order Date :- 25.11.2016
Anil