caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Shreyas Sinha vs The West Bengal National … on 9 September, 2020Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, S. Ravindra Bhat
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3085 OF 2020
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO. 1283 OF 2020)
SHREYAS SINHA …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 23rd December, 2019
whereby an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single
Judge on 22nd July, 2019 was dismissed.
2. The appellant had sought admission to the five-year law course
Signature Not Verified
offered by the West Bengal National University of Juridical
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2020.09.10
15:38:29 IST
Reason:
Sciences1 on the basis of the amendment in the West Bengal
1 for short, ‘University’
1
National University of Juridical Sciences Act, 19992 vide the
Amending Act which came into force on 21 st May, 2019. Such
Amending Act inter alia provided for reservation of seats for
students domiciled in the State of West Bengal to the extent of at
least thirty percent of the total intake of the University. The
Amending Act reads as such:
“1. (1) This Act may be called The West Bengal
National University of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Act,
2018.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
2. In the West Bengal National University of Juridical
Sciences Act, 1999, after section 4, the following sections
shall be inserted:-
4A. (1) The tuition fees in the University shall be such
as may be determined by the State Government
from time to time.
(2) The University shall allow free-ship in tuition
fees to at least five per centum of their total
strength to the students belonging to poor and
economically backward classes.
Note.- The relevant criteria for determining poor
and economically backward class shall be such as
may be determined by the State Government from
time to time.
(3) The University shall compulsorily make
provision for reservation of seats for the students
domiciled in the State of West Bengal to the extent
of at least thirty percent of the total intake in the
University.
4B. (1) Admission of the student in the University shall
be made on the basis of merit.
(2) Merit for admission in the University may be
determined either on the basis of marks or grade
obtained in the qualifying examination or on the
basis of marks or grade obtained in a relevant
entrance examination conducted by the University
2 for short, ‘the Act’
2
or by Common Entrance Test conducted at the
State or National level.”
3. An advertisement was published on 5th January 2019 by a
consortium of 21 National Law Universities in the country to
conduct Common Law Admission Test 3 on 12th May 2019 for which
the last date of submission of application forms was 31st March
2019. The under-graduate admissions process herein provided for a
choice of institution to the candidate, in which such candidate was
willing to seek admission based on merit. The date of CLAT was
later changed to 26th May 2019 in which the appellant participated
and was ranked 731 in the All India Merit List, declared on 14 th June
2019. As per the merit list and his choice, he was selected to get
admission in National Law University, Odisha but admittedly, he did
not join such institution.
4. The University had issued a Brochure to fill up 127 seats based on
CLAT merit list. As per the Brochure, 74 seats were meant for
general category candidates and 10 seats for West Bengal
domiciled candidates including 4 seats for general category.
5. The grievance of the appellant is that 30% of the seats were
reserved for the students domiciled in the State of West Bengal
when the Act was amended on 21st May 2019. The Act had come
into force before CLAT was conducted, but the benefit of reservation
had not been extended to the students by the University in the
Academic Session 2019-2020.
3 for short, ‘CLAT’
3
6. The stand of the University before the Learned Single Judge was
that the consortium conducts the CLAT examination for admission
of students from all over the country. The seat matrix as well as the
general information about the said examination was uploaded on
the website in January, 2019. The table towards the total allocation
of seats across the categories was incorporated in the information
uploaded. All the seats in the Domicile category of West Bengal
have been filled up, whereas, for the remaining vacant seats, the
candidates in terms of the rank have been asked to confirm their
acceptance. The last candidate who would be admitted in the
General Category has rank 262, whereas the rank of the appellant
is 731. It was also contended that the Amending Act is prospective
and cannot be made applicable in respect of the admission process
which has already commenced from January 2019. The elaborate
exercise of admission was started before the Amending Act came
into force and the students had given their option for admission
based on choices of National Law Universities available.
7. The learned Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
petition inter-alia holding that the Amending Act is prospective. The
rank of the last candidate admitted from the General Category is
262 whereas the rank of the appellant is 731. In terms of the
Amending Act, 34 seats are, thus, reserved for the candidates
domiciled in the State of West Bengal being 30% of the total intake.
Such seats have to be taken away from the unreserved category
4
and added to the domiciled category. It would disrupt the entire
admission process. The candidates who have already been allotted
seats in different Universities all over the country as per the option
would be seriously prejudiced.
8. In the appeal, before the Division Bench of the High Court, an
affidavit was filed on behalf of the University, and it stated that the
first round of admission was completed on 4 th July, 2019 and
thereafter the last vacant seats were allotted on 23 rd July, 2019. The
University has attached the resolution of the Executive Council of
the University on 10th August 2019 based on the recommendation
of the Academic Council of the University on 27 th July 2019. It was
decided that the benefit of reservation in terms of the Amending
Act would be given from the next Academic Year i.e. 2020-2021.
9. The Division Bench affirmed the findings recorded by the Single
Bench, holding that the Amending Act is prospective and all seats
under the West Bengal domiciled category have already been filled
up so as to prevent students of domiciled in Bengal to migrate to
other States. It was held that sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the
Amending Act makes it clear that the reservation provided to
candidates to apply for CLAT is for the session starting after the law
comes into force. It also held that the test of reasonableness and
fairness has not been compromised in any manner by the
University. The Court held that the Amending Act has come into
force after the admission process was started, therefore, such
5
Amending Act would amount to changing the rules of the game
after the start of the admission process.
10. In the Special Leave Petition against the Order passed by the High
Court, the show cause was issued limited to the question as to
whether the appellant can be accommodated for admission to the
University for the year 2020-2021.
11. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted
that since the Amending Act came into force at once, the University
was bound to provide reservation to students who are domiciles of
West Bengal. As the test was held after the Amending Act came
into force on 21st May 2019, the action of the University in not
granting benefit of domicile to the appellant was unwarranted,
illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Amending Act. It was
also argued that the appellant was the only candidate who had
sought admission against the seats meant for West Bengal
domiciled candidates, therefore, he should be admitted dehors the
merit list. Learned senior counsel for the appellant relied upon the
direction (iii) in the judgment of this Court reported in S. Krishna
Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.4 to contend that
if a meritorious candidate has been denied admission for no fault of
the candidate, for the reason that the cut-off date has passed, such
candidate is entitled to be admitted in the next session, if the
candidate has approached the Court at the earliest and without any
delay. The court can direct the admission to such a candidate in the
4 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1609
6
next academic year by directing to increase in the number of seats
and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly
denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, the Court may
direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota.
12. The Judgment in Anupal Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. Through
Principal Secretary, Personnel Department & Ors. 5 was relied
upon to contend that the Amending Act does not amount to
changing the rules of the game after the commencement of the
selection process.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the
University contended that the last candidate admitted in the
category of domicile students in the West Bengal against the
existing quota of 10 was at merit rank No. 356, whereas, the rank
of the appellant is No. 731. The decision of the Executive Council
of the University was in terms of the Amending Act as the
University resolved to provide compulsory reservation in view of
the fact that the admission process had already been started and
the option of the candidates to seek admission in the various
National Law Universities had already been given. Any change in
the choice of admission would not be possible at such a stage
because of the large number of candidates taking CLAT. Therefore,
the University had decided to give the benefit of reservation in
terms of the Amending Act from the next Academic Year. It was
argued that even if the option for domicile for West Bengal
5 (2020) 2 SCC 173
7
candidates was made available to the appellant, still, he would only
have a remote chance of getting admission in the University
keeping his rank in the merit list.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment of this
Court in P. Bhima Reddy v. State of Mysore & Ors.6 to contend
the expression commencement of the Amending Act “at once”
means within a reasonable time after the commencement of the
Act. The decision of the Executive Council of the University was
taken within a reasonable time and cannot be said to be arbitrary
as the admission process was initiated before the Amending Act
came into force. Therefore, it was not possible to give effect to the
provisions of the Act from the Academic Session 2019-2020. Thus,
the action of the University to grant the benefit of the Amending Act
from the next academic session cannot be said to be unreasonable
and is a possible decision in terms of the Amending Act.
15. The Bill for amending the Act was tabled on 16th November, 2018.
The same came to be approved and published in the State
Government Gazette on 21st May 2019. The Amending Act comes
into force at once i.e. on 21 st May 2019 but there is no provision in
the Amending Act that it will apply to the on-going admission
process. The University was mandated to provide compulsory
reservation of seats to the extent of at least 30% of the total intake
in the University but the year from which the said admission was to
be reserved was not prescribed in the statute. The Academic
6 (1969) 1 SCC 68
8
Council of the University in its 36 th meeting held on 27th July, 2019
resolved that 30% reservation for West Bengal domiciles will be
implemented from the next Academic Year. Such decision of the
Academic Council was approved by the Executive Council of the
University on 10th August, 2019.
16. The total seats at the University are 127 including the seats meant
for State domicile candidates prior to the amendment. The
additional seats reserved were required to be provided at the time
of initiation of the admission process which started in January,
2019. Each of the candidates intending to appear in the CLAT is
required to give three choices for admission into the National Law
Universities. The candidates had given these choices keeping in
view the reservation policy of each State. Since the reservation
policy of 30% seats was not available on the date when the
admission process was initiated, the decision of the University to
provide reservation from the next Academic Year cannot be said to
be contradictory to the provisions of the Amending Act. The Act is
silent in respect of Academic Year in which the benefit of
reservation is to be given. The candidates have already applied
and given an option for admission in the various National Law
Universities before the coming into force of the Amending Act.
Therefore, the University extended the benefit of the reservation
from the next Academic Session. We find such decision to be fair,
reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious.
9
17. None of the judgments referred to by Mr. Vikas Singh are helpful to
the arguments raised. In Anupal Singh’s case, the challenge was
to the bifurcation of vacancies in the cadre of subordinate
agricultural service in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that
it amounts to changing of the rules of the game in the middle of the
selection process. However, the bifurcation of seats amongst the
different categories was due to the wrong calculation of seats as
per the statutory provisions. It was held that such an amendment
in the bifurcation of seats did not amount to change of rules of the
game as it was necessitated on account of a mistaken calculation of
seats in terms of the provisions of the statute.
18. S. Krishna Sradha’s case is applicable only if a meritorious
candidate has been denied admission. In the present case, the
appellant cannot be said to be a meritorious candidate in the
Academic Session 2019-2020. The benefit of reservation had been
extended to the candidates by the Universities from the next
Academic Session i.e. 2020-2021. Since there is no mandate in the
Amending Act to grant the benefit of reservation in the Academic
Year 2019-2020, therefore, the University keeping in view the entire
facts and circumstances has rightly held that the benefit of
reservation would be extended from the next academic year as the
admission process had already been initiated before coming into
force of the Amending Act.
19. We also find that the judgment referred to by Mr. Chatterji is not
10
helpful to the arguments raised. The case pertained to a successful
tenderer who was not granted a license because he had failed to
furnish a statement of immovable properties and to furnish certain
sureties as required by the Rules prescribed. It was in these
circumstances, the Court held that the expression “at once” has to
be interpreted as to be within a reasonable time. However, the
Amending Act in the present case came into force from the date of
its publication in the Official Gazette. Since the Amending Act does
not contemplate that the benefit of reservation has to be granted in
the ongoing academic session, therefore, the University was at
liberty to decide to extend the benefit from the next academic
session.
20. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the High Court
or that this decision of the University contravenes the provisions of
the Amending Act, which may warrant interference in the present
appeal. The appeal is, thus, dismissed with no order as to cost.
………………………………………J.
(L. NAGESWARA RAO)
………………………………………J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
………………………………………J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 09, 2020.
11
Comments