Devendra Kumar vs The Coordinator Jet/Pre-Pg/Ph.D
2022 Latest Caselaw 2177 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16056/2021

Devendra Nehra S/o Sh. Babulal Nehra, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Sauon Ki Dhani, Gangsara, Barmer (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D Entrance Examination-

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner Through Its Registrar.

3. Swami Shri Prannath Parnami Agriculture College, Padampur, Affiliated To Skrau.

----Respondents

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17993/2021

Simran Kaur D/o Chhinder Singh, Aged About 18 Years, Vpo Kaliyan Ward No. 14, 4 G, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Coordinator, JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D Entrance Examination 2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

4. Saraswati Sikshan Sadan Agriculture College, Sriganganagar, Parent Body Sarsawati Sikshan Sadan Managing Committee, 3-E Chhoti, Sriganganagar.

----Respondents

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16065/2021 Sumit Kumar S/o Sh. Subhash Chandra, Aged About 18 Years,

(2 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

Resident Of - 4 T K, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D Entrance Examination-

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner Through Its Registrar.

3. Swami Shri Prannath Parnami Agriculture College, Padampur, Affiliated To Skrau.

----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16269/2021 Harman S/o Sh. Jagdish, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Father Jagdish S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of - V.P.O. Bhagwansar, Tehsil - Suratgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D, Entrance Examination -

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

3. Swami Shri Prannath Parnami Agriculture College, Padampur, Affiliated To Skrau.

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16283/2021 Sanjeev Kumar S/o Late Vijendra Kumar, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Mother Kamla Devi W/o Late Vijendra Kumar, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Dabdi Baloda, Tehsil Navalgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu, (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D, Entrance Examination -

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur,

(3 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

Rajasthan.

2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

3. Swami Shri Prannath Parnami Agriculture College, Padampur, Affiliated To Skrau.

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16319/2021 Navneet Singh S/o Kuldeep Singh, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of - 1, P.O. - Udsar 2 MK, Muklawa, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D, Entrance Examination -

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

3. Parmanand Degree College Gajsinghpur, Distt. -

Sriganganagar Affiliated To Skrau, Bikaner.

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16326/2021 Devendra Kumar S/o Chaina Ram, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Father Chaina Ram S/o Sh. Tulcha Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of - Pharaspura, Morra, Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D, Entrance Examination -

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

                                        (4 of 16)                   [CW-16056/2021]


3.    Maharaja     Agarsen         Agriculture          College,     Suratgarh,
      Affiliated Of Skrau, Bikaner.

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents (8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16327/2021 Parag Suman S/o Jagmohan Suman, Aged About 18 Years, Resident Of - Near Old Block School, Ward No. 25, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D, Entrance Examination -

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

4. Parmanand Degree College Gajsinghpur, Distt. -

Sriganganagar.

----Respondents (9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16329/2021 Manish Saharan S/o Hansraj, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Father Hansraj S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of - Ward No. 12, Jorawar Pura, 3 Hlm, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D, Entrance Examination -

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

3. Maharaja Agarsen Agriculture College, Suratgarh, Affiliated To Skrau, Bikaner.

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The

(5 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

Government, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents (10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16330/2021 Pukhraj Sharma S/o Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged About 18 Years, Ward No.1, Godasi Kheda, Mandal, Bheelwara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D, Entrance Examination -

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

3. Maharaja Agarsen Agriculture College, Suratgarh, Affiliated To Skrau, Bikaner.

4. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents (11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16591/2021 Gaurav Kumar S/o Kewal Krishan, Aged About 17 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Father Kewal Krishan S/o Nanak Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of - Ward No. 9, Banwali, 5 Banav Banwala, Sadulsahar, Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Coordinator JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D Entrance Examination -

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner Through Its Registrar.

4. Parmanand Degree College Gajsinghpur, Distt. -

Sriganganagar.

----Respondents (12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16886/2021

(6 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

1. Maharaj Agarsen Agriculture College, Parent Body, Skill Development Trust, Indira Circle, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar Through Its Secretary Naveen Khemka S/o Sh. Govind Ram Khemka, Aged About 37 Years, E-11, Basant Vihar, Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar.

2. Saraswati Sikshan Sadan Agriculture College, Sriganganagar, Parent Body Saraswati Sikshan Sadan Managing Committee, 3-E Chhoti, Sriganganagar, Through Its Managing Director Sh. Balraj Jakhar S/o Sh. Sukhpal Singh Jakhar, Aged About 46 Year, R/o 11 LNP, Udhyog Vihar, Sriganganagar (Raj.).

3. Swami Shri Prannath Parnami Agriculture College, Padampur, District Sriganganagar, Parent Body Shir Krishna Vidhyalaya Prabandhak Samiti, Padampur District Sriganganagar Through Its Secretary Baldev Raj S/o Sh. Mukan Lal, By Caste Arora, Aged About 79 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 10, Tehsil Padampur District Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Additional Director Agriculture (Research), Directorate Of Agriculture, Government Of Rajasthan, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. The Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, Beechwal, Bikaner Through Its Registrar.

4. The Coordinator, JET/Pre-PG/Ph.D Entrance Examination-

2021, S.K.N. Agriculture University, Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar for Mr. B.S. Sandhu Mr. Vinit Sanadhya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by Mr. Rajat Arora

All through V.C.

                                              (7 of 16)                    [CW-16056/2021]


                         JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                     Judgment

                Reserved on                       :      04.02.2022
                 Pronounced on                   :       08.02.2022

1. These matters come up for consideration of application under

Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India filed by respondent No.1

for vacating the interim order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this

Court.

2. It may be noted that when 4 writ petitions out of the present

batch of writ petitions came for motion hearing before this Court

on 25.11.2021, the matters were ordered to be listed on

01.12.2021 while reflecting name of Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned

Addl. Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan in the cause-

list.

3. Meanwhile, various other writ petitions came to be filed and

all these petitions were tagged and heard for interim relief on

14.12.2021. Upon considering the petitioners' contention that the

respondents have permitted Maharana Pratap University as well as

other state run universities to conduct counselling for their vacant

seats, without affording such opportunity to the private

institutions/colleges including the petitioners, this Court passed an

interim order directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to conduct one

additional counselling, permitting all the remaining Institutions

including private institutions to participate for their

vacant/remaining seats. The order was also passed because the

Court felt that keeping 2212 seats vacant out of total 7712 seats

would be to nobody's advantage.

4. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel putting in

appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 - Coordinator JET/Pre-

(8 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

PG/Ph.D Entrance Examination - 2021, at the outset pointed out

that the interim order dated 14.12.2021 was passed only after

considering the submissions of the State Government and the

answering respondent - Coordinator and the Swami Keshwanand

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner (SKRAU) who were

necessary parties, were not heard, due to which all the requisite

and correct facts and law could not be brought to the notice of the

Court and hence, the interim order came to be passed as the

State could not give proper assistance/response. Without raising

any grievance against the learned Addl. Advocate General, who

appeared for the respondent - State, it was respectfully submitted

that as learned AAG did not receive any instructions from the

Coordinator/SKRAU, he was not in a position to satisfy the Court

about the ground realities.

5. Mr. Maheshwari then submitted that as per the general

guidelines issued for Joint Entrance Test (JET) - 2021, the

candidates were required to fill online application forms after

entrance examinations, whereafter the counselling was to take

place as per the following Schedule:

            Schedule                          Date                  Day
Option form open                         19-Oct-2021               Tuesday
Last date of payment & editing           21-Oct-2021              Thursday
1st seat allotment list                  23-Oct-2021              Saturday
Online acceptance                        24-Oct-2021               Sunday
Reporting in the allotted college        25-Oct-2021               Monday
2nd seat allotment list                  26-Oct-2021               Tuesday
Online acceptance                        27-Oct-2021              Wednesday
Reporting in the allotted college        28-Oct-2021              Thursday

If seats are vacant after reporting in the respective colleges on 28th Oct. 2021 and the option of the candidates remains available, the 3rd final seat allotment list will be displayed on 29th Oct. 2021.

                                            (9 of 16)                      [CW-16056/2021]


3rd final seat allotment list             29-Oct-2021               Friday
Online acceptance                         30-Oct-2021              Saturday
Reporting in the allotted college          1-Nov-2021               Monday

6. It was pointed out that as per the guidelines issued by the

Coordinator, third round of counselling or spot/final counselling

took place between 18.10.2021 to 21.10.2021.

7. While taking the Court through the guidelines aforesaid and

relevant para-10 and 11, learned counsel submitted that spot/final

counselling was the last option available to the candidates,

whereafter the process of admission has closed on 01.11.2021.

He argued that after third round of counselling or spot/final

counselling, if a candidate does not report or does not get

admission in the college of his choice and/or some seats of

University/college remain vacant, neither can the Coordinator be

blamed nor can a direction to conduct another counselling be

issued.

8. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the data

given in the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of

India and submitted that a total of 72% seats have been filled as

against 66.08% for the previous year, when the Agricultural

University, Kota was Coordinator. Taking the Court through the

information provided in the tabular form in the application under

Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, learned counsel argued

that it has been a trend that students are more inclined towards

the government Universities/constituent colleges and affiliated

colleges instead of private universities for obvious reasons. He

nevertheless submitted that seats filled up in the private

Universities/colleges in the year 2020 were 4648 (25.8%),

(10 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

whereas 5102 (34.5%) seats have been filled in this academic

year (2021-22).

9. While emphasising that the admission process has to come

to an end at some point of time, learned counsel submitted that

the indulgence cannot be granted to the petitioners, who after

taking part in the counselling and in spite of allotment of colleges,

have chosen not to accept admission for their own reasons.

10. It was also pointed out that in some of the cases, the

petitioners have come with lame excuses of having poor internet

connectivity or lack of financial resources to deposit the fees. Mr.

Maheshwari submitted that the direction to conduct additional

counselling given by the Court vide its order dated 14.12.2021 is

not in the fitness of the things, particularly when the admission

process had long been over and the studies in the first semester

have not only commenced, but are on the verge of completion.

He submitted with a sense of achievement that so far as the

respondent University is concerned, practical examinations of the

first semester are over and two papers of theory have also been

held and, therefore, no admission should be ordered to be given

at such a belated stage.

11. Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners

argued that the fact that studies have commenced cannot be a

ground available to the respondent - Coordinator, particularly

when it is his fault rather rigidity, due to which the additional

counselling has not been held in spite of the directions given by

this Court on 14.12.2021. He argued that the Coordinator, who

has refused to carry out the directions of the Court cannot be

permitted to plead delay, because he is the person responsible for

(11 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

the same. He added had he carried out the mandate of the interim

order dated 14.12.2021, things would have been entirely different.

12. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the

notification issued by Maharana Pratap University and raised a

grievance that if the government universities can be permitted to

conduct the counselling on their own, how can the petitioners be

deprived of such an opportunity.

13. He submitted that 15% seats in the universities and affiliated

colleges are reserved to be filled by Indian Council for Agriculture

Research (ICAR) and according to the brochure, issued by the

ICAR, the last date of admission was 15.01.2022. His argument

has been that if 15% students in each college have got admission

after 15.01.2022 and if they are allowed to pursue their course in

the first semester then, what can be the reason to deprive the

petitioners. He added that if the universities would hold

examination for those candidates (getting admission through

ICAR), why can't the petitioners be given admission in the colleges

of their choice, where the seats are still lying vacant.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners took the Court through

various provisions of the online counselling guidelines issued by

ICAR and argued that Coordinator is unnecessarily creating

hurdles by putting forth reasons to avoid conducting another

counselling. He argued that respondent No.1 and 2 cannot

oppose additional counselling, when there is no objection from the

State and when the petitioners (students) and the Colleges

(petitioners in SBCWP No.16886/2021) are willing to get/give

admission respectively.

15. Mr. Vineet Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners (in SBCWP No.16886/2021) submitted that identical

(12 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

situation arose last year as well, when a group of writ petitions led

by SBCWP No.1394/2019 came up before this Court and the Court

directed the respondents to conduct one additional counselling

subject to payment of rupees two lacs. He submitted that the

petitioners are ready and willing to pay the amount as deemed

appropriate by this Court to the counselling board and they be

directed to conduct additional counselling.

16. As the arguments on stay vacation application were

substantially the same, with the consent of the parties, these

matters were finally heard.

17. A perusal of the record, including interim order dated

14.12.2021 leaves no doubt that the notices were not issued to

the Coordinator and SKRAU University, which has conducted JET-

2021. It so happened that a copy of the writ petition was ordered

to be supplied to Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, learned Addl. Advocate

General, who usually appears on behalf of the State. It did not

occur to the Court that learned AAG was not representing the

Coordinator, a necessary party. The interim order thus, came to be

passed ex-parte so far as respondent - Coordinator is concerned.

18. The fact, which persuaded the Court to pass interim order on

14.12.2021 was, that Maharana Pratap University had been

permitted to conduct counselling for their remaining seats and no

such opportunity was afforded to the private institutions/colleges

(as is evident from para-1 of the interim order). The Court was

given to believe that the same was done at the instance of the

respondents. But the facts as emerged are quite different.

19. Having gone through the contents of the application under

Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and after considering

the submissions made by Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari and having

(13 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

regard to the detailed schedule published by JET Coordinator, duly

encapsulated in the general guidelines, this Court is of the

considered view that once final/spot counselling has taken place in

terms of para-12 of the guidelines, there is no scope for any other

counselling.

20. The fact that 2212 seats have remained vacant cannot by

itself be a reason to direct the respondent - Coordinator to

conduct a fresh counselling.

21. Admission can be granted only by and through the

Coordinator of Joint Entrance Test and no one else. Had the fact

been brought to the notice of this Court that the body or the

authority responsible for conducting counselling is the SKRAU

University or its Coordinator, obviously their view point would also

have been taken into account.

22. This Court is convinced with the contentions of the

Coordinator that the counselling conducted by Maharana Pratap

University was irregular. It could not on its own hold counselling

in order to fill up its vacant seats. It is for the State or the

competent authority to consider and take action qua such irregular

admissions (if any) given by Maharana Pratap University or other

universities. But illegality or irregularity cannot be perpetuated.

23. This Court does not feel persuaded by the argument of the

petitioners that the students coming through the ICAR would be

joining after 15.01.2022 and if they can be accommodated, how

can the petitioners be denied admission. In the opinion of this

Court, the petitioners cannot equate their cases to that of the

students coming from ICAR.

24. Because, all the petitioners had submitted their online

application forms for taking part in the JET - 2021 and in this

(14 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

process whosoever had appeared in the counselling has been

allotted one university/college or the other. It was the petitioners'

sweet will, who did not accept the admission in the college allotted

or made available to them. A candidate who chooses not to

appear in the counselling or subsequent counselling or who

despite getting admission chooses not to join, cannot invoke writ

jurisdiction and claim admission in a college of his choice, merely

because the seats happen to be vacant.

25. It is not a case set up by the petitioners that there was any

irregularity or error in the counselling process or that any

candidate less meritorious than the petitioner(s) has/have been

given admission in the college where they wanted to get

admission.

26. According to this Court, the process of admission and

counselling is sacrosanct and unless there exist compelling

reasons, it cannot be tinkered with. That apart, the admission

process was complete in November, 2021; much time has

elapsed; and, we are now landed in the month of February, 2022.

The practical examinations for the first semester have already

been held and two theory papers have already been conducted.

Maybe, the same is not the situation in some of the colleges or

universities, but the undeniable fact is, that substantial part of

curriculum must have been covered by now.

27. No sooner had the interim order passed (14.12.2021) than

the Coordinator moved stay vacation application. He, therefore,

cannot be accused of being arbitrary or otherwise vindictive.

28. The disposal of the application and hearing has taken a

considerable time and hence, even if thought appropriate, the

order to hold additional counselling cannot now be enforced as the

(15 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

process would take at least two weeks and these two more weeks

will swing whatever little equity this Court had (in favour of the

petitioners) towards the other end.

29. The petitioners who have chosen not to get admission or who

had adopted lackadaisical approach towards their career cannot be

granted undue advantage or sympathetical consideration and

permitted to disturb the entire process of admission, that too, in

the case concerning higher education.

30. Moving on to the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by this

Court in the case of SBCS (supra), suffice it to note that the facts

involved in that case were starkly different. In the said case, the

State had discriminated between the private colleges vis-a-vis

private universities. In that case, after all rounds of counselling

were over, the State itself had conducted an additional counselling

in which though government universities and private universities

were allowed to take part in the counselling but the private

colleges were kept out of the process. When the private colleges

approached, the respondent-state took a stand that a large

number of 1064 seats of the private universities were vacant,

whereas seats that remained vacant in private colleges were only

72 and hence, private colleges were not included in the additional

counselling process. It was in that backdrop and also, in view of

the concession given by the respondents, as noticed in para No.5

and 6 of the order, that the Court was persuaded to issue a

direction to conduct spot/additional counselling.

31. It is also to be noted that the petitioners therein were the

private colleges, whereas in the present bunch of writ petitions,

the petitioners are the students, who themselves have remained

indolent towards their education. True it is, that one petition has

(16 of 16) [CW-16056/2021]

been preferred by three colleges, but in the opinion of this Court,

the future of the students and standard of education outweighs

the commercial interests of the colleges.

32. In view of the discussion foregoing, all the writ petitions

including SBCWP No.16886/2021 filed by the College are hereby

dismissed.

33. Interim order dated 14.12.2021 passed by this Court stands

vacated, stay applications stand dismissed. All interlocutory

applications stand disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 130 to 141-ArunV/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)