Amrit Thappa vs Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology and Another

H.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner passed the Diploma Course in the discipline of "Computer Services and Maintenance" in the year 1997 from the Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the institute). The petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category was, therefore, eligible to compete in the All India Common Entrance Test for admission to the degree course for the year 1997 onwards. As per the prospectus/information Brochure for the Entrance Test issued by the institute, the written test was to be held on 7-6-1997. The petitioner took the test and the result whereof was declared on 1-7-1997. The petitioner was shown as having qualified the same and was placed at No. 75 in the combined merit list of the general as well as reserved category candidate whereas as per his interview letter he was shown at serial No. 4 in the waiting list in the Scheduled Caste Category. The result aforesaid was challenged by some in house students of the institute on the ground that a benefit of 20% weightage in marks had to be given to the students who had passed the diploma from the institute for the purpose of the determination their merit. The petition, C.W.P. 10265 of 1997 Harkamal Singh v. Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal, and another, was allowed on September 10, 1997 vide copy of judgment appended as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition with the following observations :--

"For the reasons aforesaid we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to give the benefit of 20% weightage of the result of qualifying course i.e. the Diploma course for admission to degree course in accordance with Clause 2.1 (a) of the brochure. There shall be, however, no order as to costs."

The petitioner taking advantage of this judgment filed a representation on 10-1-1998 seeking the benefit of this judgment and after having received no redress sent a reminder Annexure P/ 6. As the petitioner did not receive any reply to this as well, he has filed the present writ petition.

A written statement has been put in on behalf of the respondents and the primary stand taken is that the judgment in Harkamal Singh''s case (supra) had been rendered on September 10, 1997 and as the representation Annexure P/5 had been filed on 10-1-1998 and a reminder issued thereafter vide Annexure P-6, the writ petition having been filed on 7-2-1998 being belated was liable to be dismissed on this ground. It has also been highlighted that since a substantial part of the course in question had already been undergone by the students, (and at the time of arguments, it was contended that the first of three trimesters had been completed and the second one was likely to end by the end of March), it would not be possible for the petitioner to get instruction in the course so as to entitle him to take the examination of the first year of the degree course or to admission to the next trimester. In this connection, pointed attention has been brought to Rule 3.3(i) and (ii) of the Academic Rules which read as under:--

"(i) Registration to 1st, 2nd and 3rd Trimester: A student will be automatically registered to the 1 st trimester at the time of admission. In order to register in the 2nd Trimester, the student must have attended the 1st Trimester. In order to register 3rd Trimester, a student must have attended the 2nd Trimester.

(ii) Registration to the 4th Trimester: A student must obtain a C.G.P.A. of 4.0 in order to register to the 4th Trimester. Students with C.G.P.A of 4.0 have to register in the subjects (in which they failed) in the available trimester (1st, 2nd or 3rd as the case may be) with the current students. Students with C.G.P.A 4.0 but failed in one or two subjects may register for those subjects along with the subjects of 4th trimester, if available."

Mr. Bhatia, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that it cannot be denied that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the judgment in Harkamal Singh''s case (supra) and a subsequent judgment of another Division Bench in case Ashwani Sharma v. Sam Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal and another, C.W.P. 11598 of 1996 decided on October 17, 1996 and as such the petitioner was entitled to admission. He has also pointed out that in this situation the question of laches would not arise as it was for the Institute to have implemented the judgments of this Court in full as per the direction issued in Harkamal Singh''s case (supra). It has also been argued that one seat for the year 1997 still remained vacant, and the. petitioner could be admitted to that seat but permitted to attend classes with the batch which was to be granted admission in this year and in that eventuality the petitioner would undertake to complete the course within four years from 1998 (the maximum number of years being five us stipulated in Rule 5.9(5) of the Academic Rules). An affidavit to this effect has also been filed by the petitioner.

Mr. Waraich, the learned counsel for the respondents has refuted the arguments on the basis of pleadings.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. As per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in Harkamal Singh''s case (supra) noted above, it was for the institute to have rectified the merit list in the light of the judgment, and no onus lay on anyone else to seek its rectification. The petitioner nevertheless filed two representations seeking the benefit of the aforesaid judgment but to no effect. The in action on the part of the institute, therefore, cannot be used as a means to defeat the petitioner''s legitimate claim on the ground of laches. The relief due to the petitioner must, therefore, be moulded accordingly in the light of the fact that he has not taken any instruction in the first two trimesters. We accordingly allow this petition and direct that the petitioner be admitted against the unfilled seat left over from the admissions made in 1997 and be admitted to the first trimester of the course of study commencing in the year 1998. The petitioner shall also he bound by his undertaking that he would not demand a period of five years to complete the entire course as would have been permissible to him had he got admission in the year 1997 and shall restrict his claim to passing the course within four years of his admission in the year 1998. There will be no order as to costs.