WBNUJS Kolkata : SC Dismisses Plea To Apply 30% Domicile Reservation To 2019-2020 Academic Year [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has approved the decision of the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), Kolkata to not apply the benefit of 30% domicile reservation to the academic year 2019-2020.A Bench comprising of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and S. Ravindra Bhat held that the WBNUJS (Amendment) Act, 2018 applies only prospectively and could not have applied to the admission process for the academic year 2019-20, which was ongoing when the Act came into effect.Accordingly, the bench dismissed an appeal filed by a candidate, who sought for the benefit of 30% domicile reservation in the academic year 2019-2020(Shreyas Sinha vs The West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences and others).The bench held the decision of the University to extend the benefit of reservation only from the next Academic session, i.e. 2020-2021 as "fair, reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious". FACTS OF THE CASEThe issue at hand was the admission of the Appellant to the five-year law course at WBNUJS on the basis of the WBNUJS Amendment Act, 2018, which came into force on 21.05.2019. It provided for the reservation of seats on the basis of the domicile in the State of West Bengal to the extent of at least 30% of the total intake of the University. The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) was held on 26.05.2019 (it was changed from 12.05.2019) and the results were declared on 14.06.2019 wherein the Appellant had ranked 731. The Appellant's contention is that, as the Act had come into force before CLAT was conducted, the benefit of domicile reservation should be extended to the students by the University for the academic session of 2019-2020. On this ground, the Appellant filed a writ before the Calcutta High Court. It was contended by the University that the seat matrix as well as the general information about the examination had been uploaded on the website in January 2019. Further, all the seats in the domicile category had been filled up and the last candidate who had been admitted in the General Category had a rank of 262. It was also submitted that the Act was prospective and could not be made applicable in respect of the admission process which had already commenced from January 2019 "The elaborate exercise of admission was started before the Amending Act came into force and the students had given their option for admission based on choices of National Law Universities available". The plea was dismissed by the Single Judge Bench and held that the Act was prospective in nature, and that taking away seats from the unreserved category to add to the domicile category would disrupt the entire admission process. Additionally, candidates who had already been allotted seats in different Universities would be seriously prejudiced. An Appeal was filed before the Division Bench, which affirmed the findings recorded by the Single Bench. "It was held that sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Amending Act makes it clear that the reservation provided to candidates to apply for CLAT is for the session starting after the law comes into force. It also held that the test of reasonableness and fairness has not been compromised in any manner by the University". Subsequently, a Special Leave Petition against the Order of the High Court was filed before the Supreme Court. COURTROOM EXCHANGE During the hearing, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, had submitted to the Bench that the Committee had only claimed to "see" the Amendment when the Petitioner had made a Representation before it. Further, the Calcutta High Court had dismissed the Appeal against the Committee's decision, and the Petitioner had approached the Supreme Court immediately. Justice Gupta had then asked Singh to see the Amendment and informed him that the University had the discretion to decide when the Amendment would come into force. This was opposed by Singh who submitted that the Amendment itself stated that the same would come into force immediately. The Bench then asked Singh about what the minimum reservation quota was, and why was the University being allowed to reserve seats. Singh responded that 30% was the minimum reservation limit, and the same could go up to 100%. "Amendment had come on 21st May. CLAT was conducted after this date, on 26th May. Result was published on 14 June. Not giving benefit of domicile is unwarranted and illegal. Please see a larger Bench judgement of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh", stated Singh. Singh elaborated that the 2019 S. Krishna Sradha judgment stated that if a meritorious student had been deprived of benefits in one academic year, the same could be provided in the next year if the candidate approaches the Court at the earliest and without any delay. Additionally, the Court could direct for the increase in the number of seats in the next academic year, and if it...

WBNUJS Kolkata : SC Dismisses Plea To Apply 30% Domicile Reservation To 2019-2020 Academic Year [Read Judgment]

Radhika Roy

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

WBNUJS Kolkata : SC Dismisses Plea To Apply 30% Domicile Reservation To 2019-2020 Academic Year [Read Judgment]

Radhika Roy

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers