Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Writ Petn. No. 1 of 1954

Advocates

Inder Dev Dua

Judges

Ramabhadran, J.C

Acts

provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution.4.
Section 31 of the East Punjab University Act,
provisions of Articles 15(1) and 29(2)
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY ACT 1947
II. Rule 6

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Jai Chand Rai v. Registrar, Punjab University

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Jai Chand Rai, a clerk in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hissar, submitted an admission form on 7 July 1953 for the Punjab University Intermediate Examination scheduled for 5 September 1953. He sought to offer Urdu as an elective subject. On 8 August 1953, the respondent informed him that University rules did not permit him to offer Urdu as an elective; he was asked to choose another admissible elective. The petitioner substituted Hindi for Urdu as his elective and made Urdu his optional subject.

The petitioner appeared at the examination and, when results were announced, failed in English and Hindi. He contended that, had he been allowed Urdu elective, he would have passed (a two-mark deficiency in English being condonable). He made representations to University authorities seeking to be deemed to have passed in four subjects and to be allowed to sit in the Hindi elective in April 1954; the University rejected the representation. He then filed a petition under Article 226 alleging discrimination: that the University permitted Urdu elective to European, Anglo-Indian and women candidates but not to other candidates, thereby infringing Article 15(1); he also relied on Article 29(1) as Urdu is spoken across Punjab and ought to be conserved. He sought a declaration of having passed the Intermediate Examination and permission to sit the B.A. Examination in April 1955, and Rs. 300 per month compensation from 1-9-1954 to 15-4-1955.

The petition was admitted only insofar as it alleged infringement of fundamental rights. The respondent (the Registrar on behalf of Punjab University) opposed the petition, contending inter alia that the University is an autonomous body constituted under the East Punjab University Act, that the petitioner had submitted to University regulations and that he was guilty of laches because the University's rejection of his representation was communicated in January–April 1954 while the petition was filed on 13 August 1954. The respondent further contended no fundamental rights had been infringed and that the reliefs sought were not grantable in a writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the University rule permitting Urdu as an elective only for European, Anglo-Indian and women candidates, but not for other candidates (including the petitioner), amounted to discrimination violating Article 15(1) of the Constitution.
Whether Urdu, being a language spoken across Punjab, is protected under Article 29(1) such that the University's rule infringed the petitioner's rights under that provision.
Whether the petitioner's remedy (a declaration of passing and permission to sit subsequent examinations, and compensation) could be granted by the Court in a writ petition under Article 226.
Whether the Punjab University, being State aided but not State maintained, falls within the scope of constitutional prohibitions in Article 15(1) when it frames regulations regarding examinations and subjects.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The University unlawfully barred him from offering Urdu as an elective even though Urdu was available to European, Anglo-Indian and women candidates, constituting discrimination based on sex, race and place of birth contrary to Article 15(1).
Under Article 29(1), Urdu, being a language spoken throughout Punjab, should be conserved and the restriction was therefore inconsistent with constitutional protection for languages.
Because of the prohibition he suffered serious loss, would have passed the Intermediate Examination but for that prohibition, and therefore should be declared to have passed and be permitted to sit the B.A. Examination; alternatively, he sought compensation.

Respondent's Arguments

The Punjab University is an autonomous body established under the East Punjab University Act, 1947; although the Governor is ex-officio Chancellor, the University is not a department of Government and has power to make regulations.
The petitioner submitted to and was governed by the University's rules when he appeared in the examination.
The petitioner is guilty of serious laches: his representation was rejected (reply dated 22-1-1954 and reaffirmed 19-4-1954) but the present petition was filed much later, on 13-8-1954.
No fundamental rights of the petitioner were infringed and the reliefs sought (declaratory reliefs/compensation/permission to sit future exams) could not be granted in a writ petition.
The regulations were framed by the Senate under statutory power and are intra vires; the classification permitting Urdu to specific categories was reasonable (the Senate may have concluded that European, Anglo-Indian and women candidates were more accustomed to Urdu), and therefore not arbitrary or capricious.
The University is State aided but not State maintained, and thus the regulations do not fall within the prohibition under Article 15(1) applicable to State action.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Champakam Dorairajan v. State of Madras (Full Bench, AIR 1951 Mad 120); State of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan (AIR 1952 SC 226)	Held that an executive order restricting seats for certain castes contravened Articles 15(1) and 29(2) and could not be justified under Article 46.	Petitioner relied on this authority, but the Court observed that the rulings were not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Nain Sukh Das v. State of U.P., AIR 1953 SC 384	Observation that laws providing separate electorates for different religious communities offend Article 15(1).	Cited by the petitioner; the Court noted it but did not treat it as determinative for the present facts.
State of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society, AIR 1954 SC 561	Held that a G.O. denying pupils (whose mother tongue was not English) admission to English-medium schools offended Article 29(2).	Cited by the petitioner in support of Article 29(2) arguments; the Court considered the authority but found the present case distinguishable.
Himendra Chandra v. Gauhati University, AIR 1954 Assam 65	With reference to a University calendar, held that Agricultural Botany is a subject by itself and passing marks in that subject should be treated on its own merits.	Cited by the petitioner; the Court recorded the authority but did not base its decision on it.
Kumari Bimla Devi v. The Punjab University, 54 Pun LR 369	Division Bench observation: if University regulations are intra vires and acted upon, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the University's decision.	Reliance placed on this authority to support the respondent's submission that the Court should not interfere if regulations are intra vires; the Court accepted the relevance of the principle.
Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, AIR 1952 SC 123	Principle that legislative differentiation is not necessarily discriminatory; classification is permissible if not arbitrary and bears a reasonable relation to the objective.	The Court applied this principle to analyze whether the University's classification was arbitrary; it concluded the classification was not arbitrary or capricious.
University of Madras v. Shantha Bai, AIR 1954 Mad 67	Authority indicating that State-aided but not State-maintained educational institutions may not fall within the prohibitions of Article 15(1).	The Court relied on this ruling to support its view that Punjab University, being State aided but not State maintained, did not contravene Article 15(1) by framing the regulations in question.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded through a sequence of analytical steps, each grounded in facts and law as set out in the record:

Laches and procedural history: The Court found the petitioner guilty of serious laches. Correspondence on record showed the petitioner's representation had been rejected (letter of 22-1-1954) and the Registrar's subsequent reply of 19-4-1954 reaffirmed that rejection. The petition filed on 13-8-1954 therefore came after these communications and the petitioner's allegation that the representation had not been disposed of was erroneous.
Status of the University: The Court observed that the respondent is the Registrar of Punjab University and that the University is an autonomous body constituted under the East Punjab University Act, 1947. Although the Governor of Punjab is ex officio Chancellor, the University is not a government department; the petitioner was mistaken about the University's status.
Statutory power to make regulations: Under Section 31 of the East Punjab University Act, the Senate is empowered to make regulations concerning courses of study and conditions for examinations. The Intermediate Examination rules (Punjab University Calendar, Vol. II) included Rule 6, listing compulsory subjects and specifying that European, Anglo-Indian and women candidates could offer Urdu as an elective while other candidates could not.
Character of the challenged classification: The Court considered whether this differential treatment constituted impermissible discrimination under Article 15(1). It reviewed authorities on classification (notably Kathi Raning Rawat) emphasizing that not all legislative or regulatory differentiation amounts to prohibited discrimination; classification is permissible if it is not arbitrary and bears a reasonable relation to the regulatory objective.
Reliance on precedents and intra vires principle: The Court noted authorities (including Kumari Bimla Devi) that, where University regulations are intra vires and the University acted according to them, courts ordinarily lack jurisdiction to interfere. The respondent's counsel argued, plausibly in the Court's view, that the Senate had considered the matter and that the classification was made because the specified categories were deemed more accustomed to Urdu.
State action and Article 15(1): The Court analyzed whether Article 15(1) applied. It held that educational situations attract Article 15(1) only if they are State maintained. Punjab University is State aided but not State maintained; accordingly, its regulations did not fall within the prohibition effected under Article 15(1). The Court relied on University of Madras v. Shantha Bai for support.
Conclusion on merits: On a careful consideration of facts and law, the Court found the University's classification was neither arbitrary nor capricious and therefore did not infringe the petitioner's fundamental rights as alleged. Because the petitioner was not entitled, under the University's regulations, to the reliefs sought (declaration of passing, permission to sit subsequent exams, and compensation), the Court concluded it could not grant the requested reliefs in the writ petition.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Petition rejected.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the petitioner is not declared to have passed the Intermediate Examination, is not permitted by this Court to sit the B.A. Examination in April 1955 on the basis of the claimed entitlement, and is not awarded the compensation sought.
The Court left costs to be borne by the respective parties, observing that although the petition failed on merits, transitional changes in language instruction can produce individual hardship; nevertheless, no special costs award was made.
The Court treated existing precedents and statutory powers as guiding the analysis but did not indicate that this decision established a new, general precedent; it rested on the particular statutory status of Punjab University (State aided, not State maintained) and on the conclusion that the specific classification was not arbitrary.

Disposition: Petition rejected. Costs on parties.

Show full summary ...

Jai Chand Rai v. State Of Punjab .

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and it has been made under the following circumstances. The petitioner, Jai Chand Rai, is a clerk employed in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Hissar, Punjab (I). On 7-7-1953, the petitioner submitted his admission form for the Intermediate Examination of the Punjab University, which was to be held on 5-9-1953. He offered Urdu as one of the elective subjects. On 8-8-1953, the petitioner was informed by the respondent that, according to the rules of the University, he could not offer Urdu as an elective subject. He was asked to offer some other subject admissible under the rules. Accordingly, the petitioner offered Hindi elective instead of Urdu elective and Urdu optional instead of Hindi optional.

2. The petitioner, in due course, appeared at the examination. When the results were announced, he found that he had failed in two subjects, namely English and Hindi. The petitioner's contention is that if he had not offered Hindi elective in place of Urdu elective, he would have come out successful, the deficiency of two marks in English being condonable under the rules.

3. Thereafterwards, the petitioner made representations to the University authorities, praying that he might be deemed to have passed in four subjects and allowed to appear in Hindi elective in the examination to be held in April 1954. The representation was rejected. Hence, the present petition, wherein the petitioner points out that, according to the rules of the University, he could have offered Persian, Arabic, French or German, but not Urdu, as an elective subject, whereas European, Anglo-Indian and women candidates could have offered Urdu elective. It is, there-lore, contended that the University has made a discrimination on the basis of sex, race and place of birth and thereby infringed the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution.

4. Petitioner further contends that Urdu is a language spoken all over the Punjab and under Article 29(1) of the Constitution, it must be conserved.

5. It was further alleged that the petitioner has been put to serious loss by the action of the respondent in debarring him from offering Urdu elective. But for this prohibition, petitioner's case is that he would have been successful in the Intermediate Examination and could have appeared for the B.A Examination in April 1955. Accordingly, the reliefs asked for are: (a) that he be declared to have been successful in the Intermediate Examination held in September 1953 and be permitted to sit in the B.A Examination due to be held in April 1955 (b) The petitioner be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- p.m from 1-9-1954 till 15-4-1955.

6. The petition was admitted only so far as it alleged that the petitioner's fundamental rights under the Constitution had been infringed.

7. The petition was opposed by the respondent on various grounds. Inter alia, it was pointed out that the Punjab University is an autonomous body quite distinct from the Punjab Government. As regards the petitioner's grievances, the respondent pointed out that the petitioner had submitted to the rules and regulations of the University and had appeared in the Intermediate Examination subject to those regulations. The respondent also pointed out that the petitioner is guilty of serious laches, i.e, his representation was rejected by the University on 22-1-1954 and the present petition was put in as late as 13-8-1954. The University also contended that no fundamental rights of the petitioner had been infringed and the reliefs asked for by the petitioner could not be granted in a writ petition.

8. I heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondent on 2-11-1954. Since then, I have been continuously on circuit in the outlying districts of Himachal Pradesh. I returned to Simla only recently and now proceed to dispose of the petition.

9. There is no doubt that the petitioner is guilty of serious laches. His representation to the Chancellor dated 24-12-1953 was rejected and he was informed of it by the Deputy Registrar Examinations, vide his letter dated 22-1-1954. Petitioner again took up the matter and sent a post-card on 29-3-1954 to the Registrar of the University. The Registrar sent him a reply on 19-4-1954 drawing his attention to letter dated 22-1-1954 from the Deputy Registrar and informing him that the reply should be considered as final. Copies of the replies are on the record. Thus, the allegation made in paragraph 8 of the petition to the effect that the representation had not been disposed of upto the date the present petition was riled, is erroneous.

10. In the second place, the respondent, as stated in the petition, is the State of Punjab through the Registrar, Punjab University, Solan. The respondent has rightly pointed out that the Punjab University is an autonomous body set up under the East Punjab University Act, 1947. It is true that the Governor of the Punjab is ex-officio the Chancellor of the University, but that would not make the University a department of the Government. The petitioner appears to be labouring under some misapprehension as regards the status of the University.

11. Coming to the merits of the petition, the petitioner cited, inter alia, — Champakam Dorairajan v. State Of Madras’, AIR 1951 Mad 120 (PB) (A), where a Full Bench of that High Court held that a G.O restricting the number of seats in certain Government colleges for certain castes went directly against the provisions of Articles 15(1) and 29(2) and cannot be justified under Article 46 of the Constitution. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in — ‘State Of Madras v. Srimathi Champakam Dorairajan’, AIR 1952 SC 226 (B).

12. Petitioner also cited — ‘Nain Sukh Das v. State of U.P’, AIR 1953 SC 384 (C), wherein their Lordships observed that any law providing for elections on the basis of separate electorates, for members of different religious communities, offends Article 15(1).

13. My attention was also drawn to — ‘State Of Bombay v. Bombay Education Society’, AIR 1954 SC 561 (D), wherein their Lordships held that a G.O denying pupils, whose mother-tongue was-not English, admission into any school where the-medium of instruction was English, offended the fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens by Article 29(2).

14. Petitioner also relied on — ‘Himendra Chandra v. Gauhati University’, AIR 1954 Assam 65 (E), where, with reference to the Gauhati University Calendar, their Lordships of the Assam High Court held that Agricultural Botany is a subject by itself and if a candidate obtained 30 per cent, in that subject, he should be declared to have passed in that subject, and it was not necessary that the candidate should get 30 per cent, in Plant Physiology and Genetics, Crop-breeding and Botany of Crop plants into which that subject had allegedly been divided.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent argued, and in my opinion not without justification, that the rulings relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

16. Under Section 31 of the East Punjab University Act, the Senate is empowered to make regulations providing for the courses of the studies to be followed, the conditions to be complied with by candidates for any University examination. The rules for the Intermediate Examination are to be found from page 5 onwards of the Punjab University Calendar, Volume II. Rule 6 gives a list of compulsory subjects. One of the compulsory-subjects is a classical language or Hindi, Punjabi, French or German. European, Anglo-Indian and women candidates could offer Urdu but not other candidates.

17. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that these rules were framed by the Senate after due consideration and they do not infringe the fundamental rights of the citizens.

18. He referred to — ‘Kumari Bimla Devi… v. The Punjab University….’, 54 Pun LR 369 (F), where a Division Bench of that High Court observed that:

“If the regulations under which the University acted are ‘intra vires’ of the Act of its incorporation and the University acted in accordance with those regulations, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the decision arrived at by the University.” Learned counsel also cited — ‘Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra’, AIR 1952 SC 123 (G), where their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed:

“All legislative differentiation is not necessarily discriminatory. In fact, the word, ‘discrimination’ does not occur in Article 14. The expression ‘discriminate against’ is used in Article 15(1) and Article 16(2), and it means, according to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘to make an adverse distinction with regard to; to distinguish unfavourably from others’. Discrimination thus involves an element of unfavourable bias and it is in that sense that the expression has to be understood in this context. If such bias is disclosed and is based on any of the grounds mentioned in Articles 15 and 16, it may well be that the Statute will, without more, incur condemnation as violating specific constitutional prohibition, unless it is saved by one or other of the provisos to those Articles. But the position under Article 14 is different. Equal protection claims under that Article are examined with the presumption that the State action is reasonable and justified. This presumption of constitutionality stems from the wide power of classification, which the Legislature must, of necessity, possess in making laws operating differently as regards different groups of persons in order to give effect to its policies.”

“A Legislature for the purpose of dealing with the complex problems that arise out of an infinite variety of human relations, cannot but proceed upon some sort of selection or classification of persons, upon whom the legislation is to operate. The consequence of such classification would undoubtedly be to differentiate the persons belonging to that class from others, but that by itself would not make the legislation obnoxious to the equal protection clause. Equality prescribed by the Constitution would not be violated if the Statute operates equally on all persons who are included in the group and the classification is not arbitrary or capricious, but bears a reasonable relation to the objective which the legislation has in view. The Legislature is given the utmost latitude in making the classification and it is only when there is palpable abuse of power and the differences made have no rational relation to the objectives of the regulation, that necessity of judicial interference arises.”

19. Learned counsel for the respondent suggested had in permitting European. Anglo Indian and women candidates to offer Urdu and at the same me, not allowing other candidates to do so, the enate probably felt that the former set of the and dates were more used to Urdu rather than Hindi and hence made this rule.

20. On a careful consideration of the facts the case, I am unable to hold that the classification made by the University is arbitrary or capricious. I may also point out that educational stituations would be within the purview of Article 5(1), if they are State maintained and not otherwise. The Punjab University is State aided but, of State maintained and therefore, their regulations do not come within the prohibition effected under Article 15(1). I am supported in this view by a ruling, reported in — ‘University of adras v. Shantha Bai’, AIR 1954 Mad 67 (H).

21. In conclusion, I may point out that the relief asked for by the petitioner, namely, that should be declared to have passed in the Intermediate Examination (where according to the Regulations, he has failed), and permitting him to in the B.A Examination to be held in April while, according to the regulations of the University, he is not qualified to do so), could not possibly be granted by this Court. The petition, under these circumstances, must fail.

22. There only remains the question of costs. Although the petition fails on its merits, it appears that persons like the petitioner, who studied Urdu at school, rind themselves at a disadvantage in view of the present switch over to Hindi. The period of transition is always accompanied by cases of individual hardship. Under these circumstances, I would leave parties to bear their respective costs. The petition fails and is rejected. Costs on parties.

R.G.D

23. Petition rejected.

Jai Chand Rai v. State Of Punjab .

Structured Summary of the Opinion — Jai Chand Rai v. Registrar, Punjab University

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Jai Chand Rai v. State Of Punjab .

Comments