Namita Sahrawat vs Swaran Jayanti Kanya Prodyogiki ...
1998 Latest Caselaw 115 Del

ORDER

Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. The petitioner passed the Senior School Certificate Examination, 1998 conducted by the CBSE securing 219 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics i.e. 73% marks in the aforesaid papers. She applied for admission to the four years Bachelor of Engineering Full Time Course in the Swaran Jayanti Kanya Prodyogiki Sansthan, Delhi (respondent No.1) However her name did not appear in the list of selected candidates published by the respondent. According to the petitioner, she belongs to a Scheduled Caste and on the basis of the marks secured by her in the SSC Examination her name should have been included at Serial No. 16 or 17 in the merit list. Though candidates at Serial Nos. 17 to 24 had secured less marks, the petitioner's name was not included in the list since she had not completed 17 years of age on or before 1st October, 1998. As per the prospectus issued by the respondents, an applicant for admission to the above mentioned course must be 17 years of age on or before 1st October of the year in which she seeks admission and no relaxation of age shall be granted. Aggrieved by the denial of admission to the course on the ground that she had not completed 17 years of age on or before 1-10-1998 the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner to the course. She has also prayed for quashing the requirement that an application for admission to the course in question must be 17 years of age on or before 1st October, 1998.

2. In response to the notice to show cause why the petition be not admitted respondents have filed a reply/counter affidavit defending the provi-

sion in the prospectus relating to the requirement of minimum age and justifying the denial of admission to the petitioner. In paragraph (4) of the counter affidavit the requirement of minimum age is defended in the following terms:-

"In so far as the question of the age requirement of 17 years for engineering course is concerned, the explanation for the same is two fold. Firstly, a child is ordinarily admitted to the first standard at the age of five to six years. Hence, at the time of passing out of school, as per the 10+2 system of education, the child would be between 17 to 18 years. Taking the lower limit, the respondent No. 1 has prescribed a cut-off age of 17 years. Secondly, for a technical course like engineering, certain level of maturity is required so that the candidate is able to grasp, assimilate and take full advantage of the technical training being imparted."

Respondents have emphasized that unlike other institutions, respondents have no policy of age relaxation. According to the respondents this was pursuant to a policy decision of the Government of NCT of Delhi that the age requirement shall be strictly enforced without any concession or favour and that there shall be no room for any discretion in the matter of age for admission to the respondents institute. It is also stated that the requirements of age has been uniformly applied to all those who submitted applications for admission and that many application have been rejected on the ground of the candidate being under-age or not fulfillling the age requirement as on the cut-off date. It is contended that any special treatment to the petitioner would result in gross injustice to those whose applications have been rejected on the ground of being under-age. It is also pointed out that in the prospectus issued by the Delhi College of Engineering, the Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology and the College of Arts (Lalit Kala Mahavidyalaya) there is a similar provision stipulating that the applicant for admission to those institutions must be 17 years of age on or before 1st October of the year in which the candidate seeks admission.

3. The impugned provision relating to minimum age is contained in clause 6 of the prospectus 1998-99 (Annexure-P1) which is extracted below:-

"Application must be 17 years of age on or before that 1st October of the year in which she seeks admission. No relaxation of age shall be granted."

The only question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the above stipulation of a minimum age of admission to the course is illegal or arbitrary.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the respondents may be competent to fix a minimum age for admission to the course they cannot discriminate between the students who passed the same qualifying examination. In other words, when admission is based on the marks obtained in a qualifying examination, namely, the SSC Examination candidates who passed the said examination cannot be denied admission on the ground that they have not completed a particular age. According to the learned counsel, the candidates who passed the SSC examination of the CBSE belong to one class and they cannot be further classified on the basis of age or date of birth. It is also contended that in similar institutions when a minimum age is prescribed a further provision is included for relaxation of age limit in appropriate cases but there is no such provision for relaxation in the prospectus issued by the respondents and hence the impugned provision is arbitrary.

5. Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondents are competents to fix a minimum age for admission to the course. His contention is that the minimum age limit should not be fixed in such a way that a candidate who passed the qualifying examination for admission will become ineligible for admission and further that in case a candidate who passed the qualifying examination becomes ineligible there should be provision for relaxation of the age limit in such cases. I am not inclined to accept this contention. The requirement of minimum age has no relation to and need not be connected with the educational qualifications required for admission. As pointed out in the counter affidavit, for a technical course like engineering certain level of maturity is required so that the candidate is able to grasp, assimilate and take full advantage of the technical training being imparted. Eligibility for admission to the Bachelor of Engineering course cannot be decided only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. The candidate should be mature enough and sufficiently equipped, not only intellectually but also physically and mentally, to undergo the course. If the respondents are of the opinion that the candidates seeking admission to the above mentioned course will acquire and possess the required maturity and physical and mental capabilities only at the age of 17 years, they are competent to fix 17 years of age as the minimum age for admission. This Court cannot interfere with such a decision unless it is shown to be clearly irrational or arbitrary. Admittedly no minimum age is prescribed for appearing in the SSC Examination of CBSE. Possibly there is no need also. All those who pass the SSC Examination are not going for professional courses like medicine or engineering. With the passing off the SSC Examination some may stop their education and others may go for different courses of studies. Hence a pass in the SSC Examination cannot be the sole criterion for admission to different courses. In addition to the educational qualification of candidates, a requirement of minimum age also can be stipulated depending on the nature of the course and the subject to be studied. Having regard to the nature of the Bachelor of Engineering Course and the subjects to be studied I cannot say that the decision to fix 17 years of age as on 1-10-1998 as the minimum age is irrational or arbitrary. It is also to be noted that under the prevailing system, normally, a student would be 17 years of age by the time he/she passed the S.S.C. Examination.

6. The absence of a provision for relaxation cannot make the provision regarding minimum age illegal or arbitrary. A candidate cannot as a matter of right claim relaxation from the requirement of age. Whether there should be a provision for relaxation of age is a matter of policy. The respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that the Government of NCT of Delhi took a policy decision that age requirement should be strictly enforced without any concession or favour and that there should be no room for any discretion in the matter of age. The said policy of the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary or unsound.

7. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all those who passed the SSC Examination should be treated as one class for the purpose of admission and that there should not be any further classification on the basis of age or date of birth. Even assuming that there is a classification between those who would complete 17 years of age as on 01-10-1998 and those who would not, such classification is not illegal or invalid. The said classification is based on intelligible and rational criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved. A minimum age is prescribed in view of the nature of the course and the subject to be studied. As pointed out in the counter affidavit, a child is normally admitted to class 1 at the age of 5 to 6 years and by the time he/she passes the SSC Examination (10+2) he/she would be 17 to 18 years of age. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that as per the circulars issued by the Director of Education the child seeking admission to Class I should be five years of age as on 30th September of the year of admission. It is also seen from Circular No. DE. 23 7/48/693-900 dated 30.3.1998 issued by the Directorate of Education, Delhi that the minimum age for admission to Class 1 in all Sarvodaya Vidyalay as in five years as on 30th September, 1998. Thus is the normal course a student who passed the SSC Examination, 1998 would be 17 years of age on or before 1st October, 1998. Hence the stipulation in the impugned provision that a candidate must be 17 years of age on or before 1st October, 1998 is not irrational or arbitrary. It may also be noted that as per the prospectus 1998-99 issued by the Delhi College of Engineering and the Netaji Subhash Institute of Technology, an applicant must be 17 years of age on or before 1st October of the year in which he or she seeks admission. As per the Prospectus 1998-99 issued by the College of Arts, New Delhi no person shall be qualified for admisson to BFA degree course unless he/she is 17 years of age before 1st October of the year in which he/she seeks admission. As per the Prospectus 1998-99 issued by the Hansraj College (University of Delhi) no candidate shall be qualified for admission unless he/she is of 17 years of age as on 1st October, 1998. It is true that as per Annexure-P4 rospectus issued by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences for admission to MBBS course the minimum age prescribed is 17 years as on 31st December of the year of admission. But that alone is not sufficient justification for this Court to held that he cut-off date (i.e. 1st October of the year of admission) prescribed by the respondents is arbitrary or illegal. It is for the respondents to decided whether there should be a minimum age and on which date the candidate should complete the minimum age. As already pointed out, considering the minimum age stipulated for admission to class 1, a student who passed the SSC Examination 1998 would normally complete 17 years of age before 1st October, 1997. What is required is not something which is impossible or difficult. The petitioner's case appears to be an exception. Such exceptional cases or individual hardship cannot be a ground for declaring a general rule relating to minimum age as illegal or arbitrary. The reasonableness of the rule cannot be tested with reference to such exceptional. The absence of a provision for relaxation of the rigour of the rule cannot be ground for declaring a rule illegal and invalid. It is not stated in the writ petition or explained by the learned counsel how the petitioner who will attain the age of 17 years only on 19th December, 1998 was able to get admission in class 1 so that she could pass the SSC Examination of 1998. Even suming that it was based on relaxation of age in the matter of admission to class 1 or any other exceptional circumstances, such relaxation or exceptional circumstances cannot entitle the petitioner for exemption from the rule relating to minimum age in the matter of admission to the engineering course.

8. In the light of the discussion above, I am of the view that the stipulation of a minimum age limit for admission to the engineering course cannot be held to be illegal or invalid. I am also of the view that the stipulation of the minimum age limit with reference to 1st October of the year of admission cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Hence I hold that the petitioner was not eligible for admission to the course and that she cannot have a grievance about denial of admission to her. There is no merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. No order as to costs.