Amit Chhikara vs Punjab University

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—The appeal is directed against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.09.2013 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking admission to the Masters of Physical Education Course (M.P.Ed) conducted by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It is the say of the appellant that respondent Nos. 5 to 15 were lower in the merit list to the appellant and their admission is contrary to the rules contained in the Handbook of Information for 2013-14 while maintaining the name of the appellant on the top of the waiting list. The admission for the M.P.Ed. Course was based on a Common Entrance Test and the pre-requisite was that the candidates should have passed the graduation examination in the same line. The appellant having appeared in the 2nd Semester of the examination of the B.P.Ed. Course in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak in 2013 applied for the Entrance Test held on 17.6.2013 and secured 42 rank. The last date for submission of the application form was 6.7.2013, which had to include the result of the qualifying degree examination. However, since the result of the appellant has not been declared by that date, the application was submitted without the result of the 2nd Semester of B.P.Ed. The appellant is stated to have also cleared the Physical Endurance Test on 17.7.2013.

The final counselling is stated to have taken place on 20.7.2013, which was a Saturday as the result of the parent Panjab University had not been declared till 17.7.2013, when the counselling was initially fixed. The appellant claims that he sought the confidential result on 22.7.2013 from M.D.U., which was Monday and was received and submitted on the same date, but in the merit list of admission displayed in the evening of 23.7.2013, the name of the appellant did not figure. The appellant claims that giving due weightage to the academic performance, the score of the appellant was 64.28% while the last candidate in the general category, who was given admission, had scored 62.14%. The name of the appellant was kept at Sr. No. 1 in the revised waiting list even though persons having less marks had been given admission.

The respondent-University sought to explain the position by taking a stand that since the result of B.P.Ed. qualifying examination of the appellant was not available on 20.7.2013, his application was rejected as per Clause 21 of the Handbook of Information qua admissions.

The learned Single Judge opined that the result of the appellant, which became available on 22.7.2013, could not have been considered because the merit list had already been prepared and finalised on 20.7.2013, including the waiting list itself. On 24.7.2013, the admission process was over, the waiting list so prepared of those candidates who could not procure admission due to lower rank and five candidates from this waiting list were accommodated in the vacant seats available due to non-filling of reserved seats and the seats being converted into the open category.

The learned Single Judge has referred to Rules 19 and 20 of the Handbook dealing with preparation of final merit list/waiting list, in terms whereof the candidate whose merit is revised consequent upon his late declaration of the Hons. result or General result and his merit fall amongst the candidates in the merit list of selected candidates, then his name is to be placed on the top of the waiting list. This is the reason as per respondent-University which resulted in the appellant being placed on the top of the waiting list as people lower than his merit had already got admission, which was denied to the appellant on account of his result not being made available on 20.7.2013, on which date both the merit list and the waiting list were prepared.

The appeal was entertained by us by recording a detailed order on 25.9.2013, the extract of which is as under:--

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though his graduation result was declared on 22.07.2013 while the merit list was prepared on 20.07.2013 on declaration of the graduation result of Panjab University, he is not claiming parity on that basis. His limited submission is that since that merit list was approved subsequently and the last date on which fee was submitted was 24.07.2013 while the confidential result of the appellant was available and communicated on 22.07.2013, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Rule 20 of the Handbook of Information, 2013, quoted at page No. 17. He further submits that five seats in the waiting list have become available in the General category on account of non-availability of the candidates in reserved categories which seats were de-reserved from various categories. Thus, his merit position, if the result had been declared in time, would have been at Sr. No. 11 in the General category which has 16 seats. All that his desire is that on communication of his result, the waiting list ought to have been revised putting him at the top of the waiting list which otherwise would have entitled him to an higher position in case of declaration of result in time.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the error appears to have occurred in the impugned order on account of a factual mistake i.e. the counselling had actually taken place on 17.07.2013 and not on 20.07.2013 and as on 17.07.2013 even the result of Panjab University was not available.

The aforesaid, thus, shows that this plea has not been appreciated or rather considered in the impugned order by the learned Single Judge, i.e., as to whether the appellant ought to have been placed on the top of the waiting list on account of his late declaration of result on 22.7.2013 when the last date for submission of fee was 24.7.2013 i.e. over the five candidates given admission from the waiting list. It is in this context that the benefit of Rule 20 has been sought, which reads as under:--

Revision of merit & placement of applicants:

A candidate whose merit is revised consequent upon the late declaration of Hons. result or General result and his/her merit falls among the candidates in the merit list of selected candidates, category wise, his/her name be placed at the top of the waiting list.

We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that on declaration of his result on 22.7.2013, the waiting list of candidates ought to have been revised putting him on top of the waiting list as the last date for submission of fee was 24.7.2013. If that would have happened, the appellant would have been placed above the five candidates admitted from the waiting list, those seats having been become available on de-reservation of five vacant seats being made available to the general category candidates.

This is the reason that while issuing notice, we had confined the same to only the respondent-University and the candidate, who is likely to be effected, i.e., respondent No. 15 being the last candidate in the waiting list.

Learned counsel for respondent No. 15 states that the said candidate has taken admission and forgone admission which would otherwise be available to the said candidate in other Institutions/Universities and to displace him now would amount to depriving him of an year while he cannot be blamed for the present situation.

On a query as to whether both the appellant and respondent No. 15 can be accommodated, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has obtained instructions and states that as per the brochure, they cannot increase the seats. She, however, submits that there are two NRI seats available, which are vacant, but they cannot be de-reserved as per brochure.

Since the aforesaid two seats would, in any case, go waste and taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the present case and the consequent loss which would arise to respondent No. 15, we are of the view that it would be appropriate in order to do complete justice that one of the said seats is made available for accommodating the displaced candidate, but naturally at a fee structure as is applicable to the normal candidates.

Needless to say that the aforesaid opinion is in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and, thus, may not be treated as a precedent.

The appeal is accordingly allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. As a sequitur to the aforesaid, the admission process of the appellant would be completed forthwith on the appellant complying with the norms.