SHREYAS SINHAversusTHE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.

                         [2020] 9 S.C.R. 869                              869


                         SHREYAS SINHA                                    A
                                  v.
         THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
              OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 3085 of 2020)                        B
                       SEPTEMBER 09, 2020
       [L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA AND
                S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
      National University of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Act,
                                                                          C
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       D
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
                                                                          E
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
                                                                          F
      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        G
in the Amending Act that it will apply to the on-going admission
process. The Academic Council of the University in its 36 th
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                  H
                                 869
870            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     approved by the Executive Council of the University on 10 th
      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
B
      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
C     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
D
      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]
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
F           68 : [1969] 3 SCR 14 – referred to.
                            Case Law Reference
      [2019] 15 SCR 93             distinguished           Para 11
      (2020) 2 SCC 173             distinguished            Para 12
G
      [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
H     of Calcutta at Kolkata in M.A.T. No. 1107 of 2019.
    SHREYAS SINHA v. THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY                            871
                OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS.

      Vikas Singh, Sr Adv., Anand Varma, Abhishek Prasad, Dhairya                   A
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.                                                          B

      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 passed by the learned Single Judge
on 22nd July, 2019 was dismissed.
                                                                                    C
       2. The appellant had sought admission to the five-year law course
offered by the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences 1
on the basis of the amendment in the West Bengal National University
of Juridical Sciences Act, 19992 vide the Amending Act which came into
force on 21st May, 2019. Such Amending Act inter alia provided for
reservation of seats for students domiciled in the State of West Bengal             D
to the extent of at least thirty percent of the total intake of the University.
The Amending Act reads as such:
          “1. (1) This Act may be called The West Bengal National
          University of Juridical Sciences (Amendment) Act, 2018.
                                                                                    E
               (2) It shall come into force at once.
          2. In the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
          Act, 1999, after section 4, the following sections shall be inserted:-
              4A.     (1) The tuition fees in the University shall be such as
                      may be determined by the State Government from time           F
                      to time.
                      (2) The University shall allow free-ship in tuition fees to
                      at least five per centum of their total strength to the
                      students belonging to poor and economically backward
                      classes.                                                      G
                      Note.- The relevant criteria for determining poor and
                      economically backward class shall be such as may be
                      determined by the State Government from time to time.
1
    for short, ‘University’
2
    for short, ‘the Act’                                                            H
872                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A                         (3) The University shall compulsorily make provision for
                          reservation of seats for the students domiciled in the
                          State of West Bengal to the extent of at least thirty
                          percent of the total intake in the University.
                     4B. (1) Admission of the student in the University shall be
B                        made on the basis of merit.
                          (2) Merit for admission in the University may be
                          determined either on the basis of marks or grade obtained
                          in the qualifying examination or on the basis of marks or
                          grade obtained in a relevant entrance examination
C                         conducted by the University or by Common Entrance
                          Test conducted at the State or National level.”
             3. An advertisement was published on 5th January 2019 by a
      consortium of 21 National Law Universities in the country to conduct
      Common Law Admission Test3 on 12th May 2019 for which the last date
D     of submission of application forms was 31st March 2019. The under-
      graduate admissions process herein provided for a choice of institution
      to the candidate, in which such candidate was willing to seek admission
      based on merit. The date of CLAT was later changed to 26th May 2019
      in which the appellant participated and was ranked 731 in the All India
      Merit List, declared on 14th June 2019. As per the merit list and his
E     choice, he was selected to get admission in National Law University,
      Odisha but admittedly, he did not join such institution.
            4. The University had issued a Brochure to fill up 127 seats based
      on CLAT merit list. As per the Brochure, 74 seats were meant for
      general category candidates and 10 seats for West Bengal domiciled
F     candidates including 4 seats for general category.
            5. The grievance of the appellant is that 30% of the seats were
      reserved for the students domiciled in the State of West Bengal when
      the Act was amended on 21st May 2019. The Act had come into force
      before CLAT was conducted, but the benefit of reservation had not
G     been extended to the students by the University in the Academic Session
      2019-2020.
            6. The stand of the University before the Learned Single Judge
      was that the consortium conducts the CLAT examination for admission
      3
H         for short, ‘CLAT’
 SHREYAS SINHA v. THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY                           873
    OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

of students from all over the country. The seat matrix as well as the           A
general information about the said examination was uploaded on the
website in January, 2019. The table towards the total allocation of seats
across the categories was incorporated in the information uploaded. All
the seats in the Domicile category of West Bengal have been filled up,
whereas, for the remaining vacant seats, the candidates in terms of the
                                                                                B
rank have been asked to confirm their acceptance. The last candidate
who would be admitted in the General Category has rank 262, whereas
the rank of the appellant is 731. It was also contended that the Amending
Act is prospective and cannot be made applicable in respect of the
admission process which has already commenced from January 2019.
The elaborate exercise of admission was started before the Amending             C
Act came into force and the students had given their option for admission
based on choices of National Law Universities available.
       7. The learned Single Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ
petition inter-alia holding that the Amending Act is prospective. The
rank of the last candidate admitted from the General Category is 262            D
whereas the rank of the appellant is 731. In terms of the Amending Act,
34 seats are, thus, reserved for the candidates domiciled in the State of
West Bengal being 30% of the total intake. Such seats have to be taken
away from the unreserved category and added to the domiciled category.
It would disrupt the entire admission process. The candidates who have
already been allotted seats in different Universities all over the country      E
as per the option would be seriously prejudiced.
       8. In the appeal, before the Division Bench of the High Court, an
affidavit was filed on behalf of the University, and it stated that the first
round of admission was completed on 4th July, 2019 and thereafter the
last vacant seats were allotted on 23rd July, 2019. The University has          F
attached the resolution of the Executive Council of the University on
10th August 2019 based on the recommendation of the Academic Council
of the University on 27th July 2019. It was decided that the benefit of
reservation in terms of the Amending Act would be given from the next
Academic Year i.e. 2020-2021.                                                   G
      9. The Division Bench affirmed the findings recorded by the Single
Bench, holding that the Amending Act is prospective and all seats under
the West Bengal domiciled category have already been filled up so as to
prevent students of domiciled in Bengal to migrate to other States. It
was held that sub-section (3) of Section 4A of the Amending Act makes           H
874               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     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. The Court held that the Amending Act
      has come into force after the admission process was started, therefore,
      such Amending Act would amount to changing the rules of the game
B
      after the start of the admission process.
           10. In the Special Leave Petition against the Order passed by the
      High Court, the show cause was issued limited to the question as to
      whether the appellant can be accommodated for admission to the
      University for the year 2020-2021.
C
             11. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant
      submitted that since the Amending Act came into force at once, the
      University was bound to provide reservation to students who are domiciles
      of West Bengal. As the test was held after the Amending Act came into
      force on 21st May 2019, the action of the University in not granting
D     benefit of domicile to the appellant was unwarranted, illegal and contrary
      to the provisions of the Amending Act. It was also argued that the
      appellant was the only candidate who had sought admission against the
      seats meant for West Bengal domiciled candidates, therefore, he should
      be admitted dehors the merit list. Learned senior counsel for the
E     appellant relied upon the direction (iii) in the judgment of this Court
      reported in S. Krishna Sradha v. The State of Andhra Pradesh &Ors.4
      to contend that if a meritorious candidate has been denied admission for
      no fault of the candidate, for the reason that the cut-off date has passed,
      such candidate is entitled to be admitted in the next session, if the
      candidate has approached the Court at the earliest and without any delay.
F     The court can direct the admission to such a candidate in the next
      academic year by directing to increase in the number of seats and if it is
      found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission
      to the meritorious candidate, the Court may direct to reduce the number
      of seats in the management quota.
G            12. The Judgment in Anupal Singh &Ors. v. State of U.P.
      Through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department &Ors.5 was
      relied upon to contend that the Amending Act does not amount to changing
      the rules of the game after the commencement of the selection process.
      4
          2019 SCC OnLine SC 1609
      5
H         (2020) 2 SCC 173
    SHREYAS SINHA v. THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY                     875
       OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

       13. On the other hand, Mr. Chatterji, learned counsel appearing       A
for the University contended that the last candidate admitted in the
category of domicile students in the West Bengal against the existing
quota of 10 was at merit rank No. 356, whereas, the rank of the appellant
is No. 731. The decision of the Executive Council of the University was
in terms of the Amending Act as the University resolved to provide
                                                                             B
compulsory reservation in view of the fact that the admission process
had already been started and the option of the candidates to seek
admission in the various National Law Universities had already been
given. Any change in the choice of admission would not be possible at
such a stage because of the large number of candidates taking CLAT.
Therefore, the University had decided to give the benefit of reservation     C
in terms of the Amending Act from the next Academic Year. It was
argued that even if the option for domicile for West Bengal candidates
was made available to the appellant, still, he would only have a remote
chance of getting admission in the University keeping his rank in the
merit list.
                                                                             D
       14. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a judgment of
this Court in P. Bhima Reddy v. State of Mysore & Ors.6 to contend
the expression commencement of the Amending Act “at once” means
within a reasonable time after the commencement of the Act. The
decision of the Executive Council of the University was taken within a
reasonable time and cannot be said to be arbitrary as the admission          E
process was initiated before the Amending Act came into force.
Therefore, it was not possible to give effect to the provisions of the Act
from the Academic Session 2019-2020. Thus, the action of the University
to grant the benefit of the Amending Act from the next academic session
cannot be said to be unreasonable and is a possible decision in terms of     F
the Amending Act.
       15. The Bill for amending the Act was tabled on 16th November,
2018. The same came to be approved and published in the State
Government Gazette on 21st May 2019. The Amending Act comes into
force at once i.e. on 21st May 2019 but there is no provision in the         G
Amending Act that it will apply to the on-going admission process. The
University was mandated to provide compulsory reservation of seats to
the extent of at least 30% of the total intake in the University but the
year from which the said admission was to be reserved was not prescribed
6
    (1969) 1 SCC 68                                                          H
876             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2020] 9 S.C.R.


A     in the statute. 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 approved by the Executive Council of the
      University on 10th August, 2019.
B            16. 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
C     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
D     Act is silent in respect of Academic Year in which the benefit of
      reservation is to be given. The candidates have already applied and given
      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.
      We find such decision to be fair, reasonable and not arbitrary or
E     capricious.
             17. None of the judgments referred to by Mr. Vikas Singh are
      helpful to the arguments raised. In Anupal Singh’s case, the challenge
      was to the bifurcation of vacancies in the cadre of subordinate agricultural
      service in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the ground that it amounts to
F     changing of the rules of the game in the middle of the selection process.
      However, the bifurcation of seats amongst the different categories was
      due to the wrong calculation of seats as per the statutory provisions. It
      was held that such an amendment in the bifurcation of seats did not
      amount to change of rules of the game as it was necessitated on account
G     of a mistaken calculation of seats in terms of the provisions of the statute.
            18. S. Krishna Sradha’s case is applicable only if a meritorious
      candidate has been denied admission. In the present case, the appellant
      cannot be said to be a meritorious candidate in the Academic Session
      2019-2020. The benefit of reservation had been extended to the
H     candidates by the Universities from the next Academic Session i.e. 2020-
 SHREYAS SINHA v. THE WEST BENGAL NATIONAL UNIVERSITY                         877
    OF JURIDICAL SCIENCES & ORS. [HEMANT GUPTA, J.]

2021. Since there is no mandate in the Amending Act to grant the benefit      A
of reservation in the Academic Year 2019-2020, therefore, the University
keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances has rightly held that
the benefit of reservation would be extended from the next academic
year as the admission process had already been initiated before coming
into force of the Amending Act.
                                                                              B
       19. We also find that the judgment referred to by Mr. Chatterji is
not helpful to the arguments raised. The case pertained to a successful
tenderer who was not granted a license because he had failed to furnish
a statement of immovable properties and to furnish certain sureties as
required by the Rules prescribed. It was in these circumstances, the
Court held that the expression “at once” has to be interpreted as to be       C
within a reasonable time. However, the Amending Act in the present
case came into force from the date of its publication in the Official
Gazette. Since the Amending Act does not contemplate that the benefit
of reservation has to be granted in the ongoing academic session,
therefore, the University was at liberty to decide to extend the benefit      D
from the next academic session.
       20. We do not find any error in the findings recorded by the High
Court or that this decision of the University contravenes the provisions
of the Amending Act, which may warrant interference in the present
appeal. The appeal is, thus, dismissed with no order as to cost.              E

Divya Pandey                                              Appeal dismissed.



                                                                              F




                                                                              G




                                                                              H