Union Of India vs Kamlesh Vishnoi
2021 Latest Caselaw 10014 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10014 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Union Of India vs Kamlesh Vishnoi on 5 July, 2021

Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Vinit Kumar Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 359/2021

1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Human Resources Department (Hrd) New Delhi.

2. The Deputy Commissioner (Exam), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Govt. Of India, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62 Noida, Up.

3. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Jojawar, Dist.

Pali, Rajasthan.

4. Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus Kamlesh Vishnoi S/o Savarup Ram, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Savarup Ram S/o Dhukal Ram, Age About 34 Years R/o Sahiba Nagar, Doli Khurd, Pachpadra, Dist. Barmer.

----Respondent

(2) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 360/2021

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Ministry Of Human Resource Development, Shastri Bhawan, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. The Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti B-15, Sector 62, Institutional Area, Noida, Up.

3. The Deputy Commissioner (Exam), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti B-15, Sector 62, Institutional Area, Noida, Up.

4. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Po Mohangarh, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus Harshita D/o Radhakishan, Aged About 10 Years, C/o Nirma Constable 565Q No. 43 Police Lines Jaisalmer - 345006 Through Her Natural Guardian Radhakishan S/o Faglu Ram Aged About 48 Years, R/o Dhaka Ki Dhani, Station Area,

(2 of 5) [SAW-359/2021]

Lohawat, Bishnawas, Phalodi, Jodhpur.

----Respondent

(3) D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 366/2021

1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Human Resources Department (Hrd) New Delhi.

2. The Deputy Commissioner (Exam), Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Department Of School Education And Literacy, Govt. Of India, B-15, Institutional Area, Sector 62 Noida, U.p.

3. The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

4. Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Jaipur.

----Appellants Versus

1. Ravindra Vishnoi S/o Sharwan Kumar, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Sharwan Kumar S/o Shri Arjun Ram, Age About 35 Years R/o Sati Mata Gali, Kalandri District Sirohi Rajasthan.

2. Khushveer Vishnoi S/o Deva Ram, Aged About 10 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Father Deva Ram S/o Shri Fusaram Age 45 Years, Resident Of Vishnu Nagar Ki Dhani, Luni, District Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajendra Katariya Mr. Avinash Acharya Mr. Gaurav Thanvi

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

05/07/2021

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

(3 of 5) [SAW-359/2021]

The present appeals arise out of a batch of writ petitions

decided by the Hon'ble Single Bench vide its judgment dated

15.03.2021.

Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted

that the controversy involved in the present case has already been

decided by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Orissa High

Court. He submits that the respondent-petitioners cannot be called

as OBC candidates as per the Central list although they may be

falling under the OBC category in the State list. Since, the

admission pertains to the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, therefore,

unless a candidate is falling under the OBC category as per the

Central list, the benefit of the same cannot be extended to any

other category although they belong to OBC category as per the

State list. The learned counsel for the appellants, therefore,

submits that the respondent-petitioners were not entitled to get

the benefit of reservation and, therefore, they have wrongly been

admitted in the schools run by Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya as per

the academic session 2020-21.

He further submits that the judgment relied upon by the

learned Single Bench in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs.

Karnataka University reported in (1986) Supp. SSC 740 is

also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present

case. He argued that by virtue of the judgment dated 15.03.2021

passed by the learned Single Bench, a number of persons will be

admitted though they are not eligible.

We have considered the submissions and prima facie we are

of the view that the respondent-petitioners were not falling under

the OBC category as per the Central list but they were given

admissions in the appellants' schools for the academic year

(4 of 5) [SAW-359/2021]

2020-21. We also note that while getting admission, the

respondent-petitioners have not withheld any information or

suppressed any facts. The admissions were given by the

appellants and the respondent-petitioners, after having studied for

a considerable period of time, were served with a notice. In our

view, though the contention of the counsel for the appellants has

ample merit but at the same time, we are in complete agreement

with the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the ground

that respondent-petitioners have completed their studies for the

academic year 2020-21 and it would be quite harsh upon those

small children at this juncture to be thrown out of the school on

the ground that their consideration as OBC candidates was not in

accordance with the provisions on the subject. The learned Single

Judge while disposing of the writ petitions of the respondent-

petitioners has observed under :-

"41. It is too late in a day to strictly tow the line of Orissa High Court and Karnataka High Court and set aside the 27% reservation and admissions given to the OBC Candidates even for academic year 2020-21. There are more than one reason for not taking this extreme view - firstly the respondents themselves have given admission to the petitioners and they have been allowed to study so far. If the reservation to OBC Category Candidates per se is quashed for academic year 2020-21, academic career of many such students, who are on the verge of completion of their first year in JNVs, would be marred. That apart, if their admission is cancelled, on the one hand these candidates would be scooped out of the schools and on the other their seats will remain unfilled.

"42.This being the position, regardless of the fact that this Court is of the view that no reservation to OBC Candidate could be given, when the admission process was half way, in considered opinion of this Court, the

(5 of 5) [SAW-359/2021]

admission given to the petitioners, deserves to be saved.

Although, the learned Single Judge has already observed

that the petitioners' admission as OBC candidates are considered

as exceptional cases, we make it clear that the judgment passed

in these cases shall not be treated as a precedent.