Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Madras HC Rejects Plea To Create Additional Seats For LLB

Apoorva Mandhani
31 July 2017 3:53 AM GMT
Madras HC Rejects Plea To Create Additional Seats For LLB
x

Madras High Court recently refused to create additional seats for open category in Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, and rejected a Petition filed by a student who had missed out on an opportunity to secure admissions due to a higher percentage of seats being reserved for different categories.The Court was hearing a Petition filed by one Ms. S. Aishwarya, who had contended that she...

Madras High Court recently refused to create additional seats for open category in Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, and rejected a Petition filed by a student who had missed out on an opportunity to secure admissions due to a higher percentage of seats being reserved for different categories.

The Court was hearing a Petition filed by one Ms. S. Aishwarya, who had contended that she was unjustly denied of a seat, and that she would have secured admissions if the University had reserved 50% and not 69% seats for Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

The State had provided for reservation up to 69% in light of a legislation passed in 1994. A Petition had thereafter challenged this Act, and the same was disposed of with a direction to the Backward Classes Commission of the State of Tamil Nadu to collect data for justifying the reservation at 69%. Since this direction was not carried out, another Petition was filed. The Supreme Court had then directed the State to create additional seats, as had been done in the last 20 years.

It was this interim order that the Petitioner had relied on. In the said order, the Apex Court had, in August, 2014 directed the State to create additional seats, in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, [AIR 1993 SC 477], wherein it had been ruled that communal reservation shall not exceed 50%.

Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu however, refused to allow the Petition at hand, observing that the order cited by the Petitioners was only applicable to that particular year.

“From the perusal of the said facts as extracted by the learned Single Judge in the above said order, it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed the order for creating additional seats only for that particular year and therefore, now the petitioner cannot approach this Court and seek for creation of additional seat for this year as well,” the Court observed while disposing of the Petition.

Next Story