 | IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 4464/2011
NIKHIL NEIL DAS ….. Petitioner
Through Mr. Ashok Agarwal, Advocate.
Versus
St. STEPHEN'S COLLEGE AND ANR. ….. Respondents
Through Mr. M.J.S. Rupal, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
O R D E R
24.06.2011
The petitioner has filed the present petition under article 226 of the constitution. The petitioner states that he is a Christian and has filled up the form for the admission in the course of Economic Honours in the respondent college in the reseved quota meant for Christians. It has been stated that when the cut off list of the respondent No.1's college is revealed, it has come to the light of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has further classified the Christian community onto sub classifications which are Christians who are members of Church of North India (CNI) and Church of North India-Delhi (CNI-D) and prescribed different cut off which has been devised to benefit candidates having membership in the Church of North India. The cut off prescribed for the Science students in the best of four subjects are as under:
Christian (Others) : 90.5%
CNI & CNI-D : 81.5%
It is stated that the there is wide difference of 9% between the qualifying percentage for admissions of ordinary Christians and the Christians of north India college which is 81.5% in case of the church of north India and Delhi as against the other Christians for which qualifying percentage is 90.5%. He says that despite 89% marks, he is not eligible to attend the interview.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ashok Aggarwal submits that the there cannot be any sub classification with in the classification of the religion for which the seats are reserved by way of quota unless the same is justified by the rational and reasonable basis.
It is submission of the petitioner that there cannot be any rational basis for further classifying the religion on the basis of membership of the church except to exclude the meritorious students and rather the respondent No.1 ought to have given the preference to the merit within the community of Christians itself. The petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 must explain the reasons for such classification as the same according to petitioner is not a reasonable one and does not pass the tests of arbitrariness envisaged under article 14 of the constitution.
Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 27.06.2011. Mr. Rupal accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.2. The petitioner shall take necessary steps to serve the respondent No.1 Dasti as well.
Copy of the order be given dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
MANMOHAN SINGH
(VACATION JUDGE)
JUNE 24, 2011 |
No comments:
Post a Comment