LexSHREYAS SINHA versus THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 869 SHREYAS SINHA v. THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3085 of 2020) SEPTEMBER 09, 2020 [L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.] National University of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2018 – Reservation for students domiciled in State of West Bengal provided – Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) conducted – Appellant who sought admission to five-year law course of the University for Academic Session 2019-2020 contended that the benefit of reservation was not extended in the said Academic Session – Writ petition dismissed by High Court – On appeal, held: Amending Act came into force at once on 21.05.2019 but there was no provision in the Act that it will apply to the on-going admission process – Admission process was initiated in January 2019 – Reservation policy of 30% seats was not available on the date when the admission process was initiated – Thus, the decision of the University to provide reservation from the next Academic Year is not contradictory to the provisions of the Amending Act – No error in the findings recorded by the High Court warranting interference – West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Act, 1999. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The Bill for amending the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences Act, 1999 was tabled on 16th November, 2018. The same came to be approved and published in the State Government Gazette on 21st May 2019. The National University of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2018 comes into force at once i.e. on 21st May 2019 but there is no provision in the Amending Act that it will apply to the on-going admission process. The Academic Council of the University in its 36th meeting held on 27th July, 2019 resolved that 30% reservation for West Bengal domiciles will be implemented from the next Academic Year. Such decision of the Academic Council was [2020] 9 S.C.R. 869 869 A B C D E F G H 870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 9 S.C.R. approved by the Executive Council of the University on 10th August, 2019. The total seats at the University are 127 including the seats meant for State domicile candidates prior to the amendment. The additional seats reserved were required to be provided at the time of initiation of the admission process which started in January, 2019. Each of the candidates intending to appear in the CLAT is required to give three choices for admission into the National Law Universities. The candidates had given these choices keeping in view the reservation policy of each State. Since the reservation policy of 30% seats was not available on the date when the admission process was initiated, the decision of the University to provide reservation from the next Academic Year cannot be said to be contradictory to the provisions of the Amending Act. The Act is silent in respect of Academic Year in which the benefit of reservation is to be given. The candidates had already applied and gave an option for admission in the various National Law Universities before the coming into force of the Amending Act. Therefore, the University extended the benefit of the reservation from the next Academic Session. Such decision is fair, reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. No error found in the findings recorded by the High Court which may warrant interference. [Paras 15, 16 and 20][875-F-H; 876-A-E; 877-E] S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [2019] 15 SCR 93; Anupal Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 173 – distinguished. P. Bhima Reddy v. State of Mysore & Ors. (1969) 1 SCC 68 : [1969] 3 SCR 14 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2019] 15 SCR 93 distinguished Para 11 (2020) 2 SCC 173 distinguished Para 12 [1969] 3 SCR 14 referred to Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3085 of 2020. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2019 of the High Court of Calcutta at Kolkata in M.A.T. No. 1107 of 2019. A B C D E F G H 871 Vikas Singh, Sr Adv., Anand Varma, Abhishek Prasad, Dhairya Madan, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Pravar Veer Misra, Vinayak Mehrotra, Amit Agrawal, Kushagra Agrawal, Ms. Radhika Yadav, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court on 23rd December, 2019 whereby an appeal against the order pass
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.