Abhyajit Sekhon vs Chandigarh Engineering and Architecture Counselling Joint Admission Committee-2014 and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The writ petitioner has claimed admission to the engineering course under the Freedom Fighter Category but he was however denied the admission against the said category on his alleged failure to comply with the requirements of proof of eligibility of consideration under the said category as stipulated in the brochure. The clause 3.17 of the published brochure required that all successful registered candidates, who had also opted one or more reservation benefit in the registration form like BC, WPD, Freedom Fighter etc. shall report in person with all supporting documents for verification at Punjab University, Chandigarh. The certificate was required to be one that has been issued not later than 30.07.2014. The requirement of personal attendance was also stipulated specifically in the brochure requiring that registered candidates who wanted to avail benefit of any of reserve categories must also report in person for verification of the certificates setting out schedule, which in relation to freedom fighter category was to be between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm. The petitioner''s admitted case was that the certificates were required to be submitted before 13.07.2014 but the ''relationship certificate'' could not be produced since there had been certain delay on the part of the officials who were required to issue the certificates. The petitioner would refer to the communications between various officials particularly of the Deputy Commissioners, SAS Nagar, Mohali and Fatehgarh Sahib about who was competent to issue the certificate, where the freedom fighter Ujjagar Singh resided at Attewali. The certificate was ultimately issued only on 18.07.2014. Evidently, the petitioner did not have a certificate issued before 13.07.2014 as required. The other requirement of falling within the category was the production of pension passbook or conferment of Tamar Patra of the freedom fighter to whom the candidate was related. The petitioner would claim that he had mailed the copies of all certificates to reach by 16.07.2014 and even if the relationship certificate had not been issued before the last date as required under the brochure, the copies sent through email were sufficient proof of the requisite evidence.

The respondent who had referred to the schedule setting out the time line as binding would also bring proof to the Court to state that the petitioner who was required to be present with the certificates for verification on 16.07.2014 was not actually present, as evident from the attendance sheet that had left the column against the petitioner''s name blank, while the persons who had actually been present had signed against their respective names. This would bring home the point that apart from the fact that the petitioner was not present, he had also not produced the proof in the manner required. The counsel would also state that there was simply no scope for diluting the requirements of the manner in which the proof was to be delivered and the date before when the documents had to be submitted for verification, there were at least 11 persons who had got marks above the petitioner, but did not report on the same day like the petitioner and therefore they were kept out of consideration. There were 9 persons, who had actually reported but who did not provide the proof in the manner required and, therefore, they were also rejected. Though there were 35 vacancies in the category of Freedom Fighters Dependents, on account of adequate persons not being shown to be eligible, they were transferred to the general vacancies and admissions have also been given. Counsel would argue that against general category itself, the petitioner did not qualify for the counselling on 13.08.2014.

Counsel for the petitioner would state that his eligibility has come through documents and the documents produced clearly showed his bona fide status as a dependent of a freedom fighter. According to him, the petitioner ought to be considered essentially for two reasons; one, the failure to produce the relationship certificate could not be attributed to him and it occurred on account of officials who were responsible to issue the certificate not carrying their obligations properly. Two, the petitioner''s proof as falling within the Freedom Fighter Dependent Category had been actually despatched through email and that itself ought to be taken as sufficient.

I must observe that any difficulty or experience by the petitioner in securing the relationship certificate within the date could hardly be a justification for the University to make a dilution of the conditions mentioned in the brochure. It was not as if the University was responsible for the delay. The notification relating to the admissions and the prospectus had been released as early on 18.12.2013 and the petitioner had ample time to secure the documents. If he had started the process belatedly on 16.04.2014, he has only himself to blame. The proof of a copy of a Tamar Patra also cannot be taken to an appropriate mode of proof for the requirement of actual presence of the candidate with document was also brought out through the brochure which I have referred above. On a strict construction of the conditions laid down in the brochure and the inability of the petitioner to present the documents in person within the time, they ought to be considered taken as appropriate justification for the University to deny admission of first place.

I thought for a while, whether there was anything to be examined, when it was open and shut situation of a candidate not fulfilling the requirements of proof of his category within the stipulated period. There have been some events which went in favour of the petitioner even amidst the unfortunate tidings of his inability to conform to the time-line. This Court, while ordering notice on 24.07.2014, allowed for consideration of the petitioner if he was in the zone of consideration, and also have the benefits of depositing his fee. The Court has observed that he had claimed benefit of category on account of such admission. If there were other candidates who had been found eligible within the same category, who were lower in rank and who had moved up by sticking to the schedule, the grant of admission to the petitioner by extending a hand of equity would have been not appropriate. Another situation, that would have disentitled the petitioner was, when the total number of seats in the reserved category had been transferred to the general category and all the vacancies have been filled up. That is the case the University now presents before this Court. The fact that the petitioner was admitted and allowed to pay fee made the transfer which the university had made only with reference to all seats, the remaining seats after the petitioner had also claimed his admission. There could have been again a situation where the candidates, who like the petitioner had not showed upon 16.07.2014, were before this Court and asking for similar reliefs like the petitioner. In such an event also the petitioner could not have had a favourable case. The same way, if 9 candidates who reported but who did not produce the certificates, in the manner required, had come before this Court and sought for fresh consideration by bringing proof of the eligibility, although belatedly, the petitioner could not had a case. All of them would have been required to be considered the same way. When out of 35 seats only 18 seats have been filled up and as many as 17 seats were going abegging, the denial of the seat for the petitioner does not appear to be fair for the persons who could have had any cause for complaint could have been only persons who belonged to the same category as the petitioner himself was. The law favours persons who are vigilant about the rights and if a person approaches the Court for relief, sometimes, it becomes possible in the manner in which circumstances turn out although by strict application of the rules it would not have been possible. I am conscious that the University will be bound by the application of the rules, the same way that the petitioner was bound. The judicial conscience is clear that no other candidate is before this Court complaining of any undue discrimination. To a young person who applies for admission to a professional college, it is fulfilment of the dream if he is admitted on the basis of merit. If there was slackness on the part of the petitioner, it was that he had not applied for the relationship certificate soon after the publication of the brochure was made. If there was last date of production on 16.07.2014 and he set the process of motion on 16.04.2014 he expected the bureaucracy to work. It did not work the way he anticipated. Lucky for him, the other candidates higher in the order of merit did not approach this Court to edge the petitioner out. As fortuitous as the circumstances have turned out, his own admission ought not to be a heart ache to anyone, since he does not steal anyone else''s chances. The provisional admission already granted is made absolute. The petition is allowed on above terms.