9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (2) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ho have been admitted into the College for the said course. Respondents 3 and 4 in Writ Petition No. 1266 of 1961 are two ether students, viz., Commonwealth Gomes and Eustace Pais, who have been similarly admitted into the College for the said course. 2. It is common ground that for the purpose of such admission into the College the marks obtained by the applicants in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at the qualifying examination were particularly taken into account. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1012 of 1961 had secured 182 out of 300 marks in the said subjects, and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1013 of 1961, 175 out of 300 marks. Respondents 3 and 4 in those petitions had secured respectively 141 and 145 out of 300 marks in the said subjects. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1266 of 1961 had secured 168 out of 300 marks as against 146 and 150 respectively out of 300 marks secured by Respondents 3 and 4 therein. 3. The petitioners therefore claim that there has been an infringement of equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. On behalf of contesting respondents 1 and 2, the affidavit of D.C. Pavat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petition No. 1266 of 1961, it is stated with reference to the petitioner therein: .....his performance in the interview is also not as much satisfactory as the petitioner has assumed about it. Taking all things into consideration, the petitioner was not able to secure admission as in the categories in which he competed for admission, on the basis of interview. There were others, who had a better performance than the petitioner and accordingly admitted in preference to the petitioner . (Sic.) 6. On these allegations, the first contention raised on behalf of the contesting respondents was that the petitioners could not be said to be aggrieved persons at all and that therefore they are not entitled to come to this Court raising legal contentions which, even if accepted in their entirety, will not or may not bring the petitioners within the number of applicants admitted into the College. It is therefore stated that the petitions should be dismissed without any further consideration of the legal contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. 7. This contention, in our opinion, cannot be accented in the circumstances of these cases for more reasons than one. 8. Fir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of admissions made without any interviews and at the discretion of the Chairman of persons who have admittedly secured at the qualifying examination less number of marks than the petitioners. The alleged infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution consists according to the petitioners in having made certain admissions on considerations which are quite different from those which had been applied in respect of the rest of the admissions and upon what is described as pure discretion without any indication of any intelligible criterion reasonably related to the object of admissions on the basis of which such categorisation has been made. 10. We therefore proceed to consider the merits of the contention pressed en behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled to complain of an infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution. 10a. Article 14 reads as follows: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. 11. The answer on behalf of the contesting respondents to this contention is that the Karnataka Regional Engineering College is owned and administered by a Society called the Kar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, MANU/TN/0096/1954 : AIR1954Mad67 , a Bench of the Madras High Court had to consider a similar question with reference to the University of Madras, an institution set up by any Act of the Madras Legislature. Rajamannar, C.J., who delivered the judgment of the Bench, after quoting Article 12 of the Constitution summarised his reasons for holding that the University is not a State , in the following terms: The question is whether the University can be held to be local or other authority as defined in Article 12. Those words must be construed 'ejusdem generis' with Government or Legislature and so construed can only mean authorities exercising Governmental functions. They would not include persons natural or juristic who cannot be regarded as instrumentalities of the Government. The University of Madras is a body corporate created by Madras Act VII of 1923. It is not charged with the execution of any Governmental functions; its purpose is purely to promote education. Though Sec. 44 of the Act provides for financial contribution by the local Government, the University is authorised to raise its own funds or income front fees, endowm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to be controlled by the Articles in Part III of the Constitution like Article 14. The enumeration in the said Article 12 indicates that Fundamental Bights are sought to be protected against legislative and executive action of the State. As observed by Chagla, C.J., in Ratilal v. State of Bombay, AIR1953Bom242 , the protection afforded by our Constitution to Fundamental Rights is against the legislative and executive interference, and the judiciary in the very nature of things adjudicates upon conflict of claims and declares rights and cannot by the operation of its own order seek to infringe Fundamental Rights which it is its duty to protect against such executive or legislative interference. To the same effect is the observation of S.R. Das, J., in The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, 1953CriLJ180 where his Lordship states that there is indication in the language of Article 22 that it is designed to give protection against the act of the executive or other non-judicial authority. The term authority in the ordinary dictionary sense may comprise not merely a person or a group of persons exercising governmental power but also any person or group of persons who, by virtu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ective which is purely educational, its power to make rules and bye-laws is also limited to the extent it is necessary for the conduct of the affairs of the Society. Its members are those that constitute the Board of Governors, of whom the Chairman is appointed by the State Government of Mysore with the approval of the Central Government, two are representatives of the State Government, one from the Finance and the other from the Technical Education Department, one representative of the Central Government, two nominees of All India Council for Technical Education, a representative of the University to which the College is affiliated and four non-official members from each of the States of Mysore, Madras, Kerala and Andhra appointed by the State Governments concerned in consultation with the Central Government and the Principal of the College who is an ex-officio member and Secretary of the Board. The bye-laws, rules, etc., framed by the Society are those that govern the affairs of the Society and those in regard to the admission of students into various courses of study, the conduct of study and examinations, etc. Their binding force is not the same as the force of imperativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersons to review the work and progress of the Society and on the report of such inspecting authority, the Central Government may take such action and issue such directions as it may consider necessary in respect of the matters dealt with in such report, which directions the Society is bound to comply with. But, this control is not sufficient to convert the Society into an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The last portion of Article 12 reading within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India which merely qualifies the term 'authorities' occurring immediately before it is not, in our opinion, sufficient to destroy or take away the essential meaning of the term 'authorities' which, as already stated, has to be ascertained ejusdem generis with the terms or expressions occurring in the earlier part of Article 12. 22. We hold therefore that the Karnataka Regional Engineering College Society is not an authority falling within the definition of the term State occurring in Article 12 nor are its rules and regulations governing the admission of students into the College maintained and administered by it la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
