Anup Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The petitioner had appeared in Combined Entrance Test, conducted by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, in May, 1994 for admission to the engineering course. Result of the test was declared on 21.6.1994. The petitioner was assigned merit position at No. 208. Before appearing in the test, he had passed 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 examination from Chandigarh. On the basis of his performance at the test, the petitioner applied for admission to various col- leges in the State of Punjab. Interview for final allocation of the college and the subject was held on 22.7.1994. The petitioner appeared before the examination-committee. He was granted admission in the subject of Electronics at Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Saheb. The petitioner presented himself before the Principal of the College on 22.7.1994, but his request was not entertained. On that day, the Principal of the College refused admission to the petitioner on the ground that he did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility prescribed by that College. The petitioner was directed to contact the Coordinator, CET Admissions-94 (respondent No. 2). Therefore, the petitioner met respondent No. 2 and moved an application for admission pending decision of the dispute on the question of his eligibility. On this application, respondent No. 2 recorded a note that the case may be treated as a disputed case and he may be given admission. The petitioner then contacted head of the trust, which runs Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib. According to him, the head of the trust wrote on the original form that the petitioner should be admitted. However, Principal of the College once again refused to give admission to the petitioner.

Case of the petitioner is that the conditions incorporated in the admission policy of Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib, (Annexure P/11) were not made known to the petitioner and, therefore, such conditions could not be enforced against him. He also assailed the constitutionality of the admission policy on the ground that reservation of 70% seats for the students from rural area is unconstitutional, being contrary to Article 14. He has also pleaded that a number of other students, who have done their 10 +1 and 10 + 2 from Chandigarh, have been granted admission in other Engineering Colleges. A specific reference to the case of Gorinder Singh Cheema, who was granted admission in Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, has been given. The petitioner has also stated that he is a bonafide resident of the State of Punjab and is a domicile of Punjab and, therefore, he could not have been denied admission in the subject of Electronics in the respondent-College at Fatehgarh Sahib, merely on the ground that he had passed his 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 from Chandigarh.

In its written statement, respondent No. 2 has pleaded that the conditions of eligibility prescribed by Baba Banda Singh Engineering College were known to the petitioner and still he applied for admission in that College by not disclosing the fact that he had passed his 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 from Chandigarh. When his certificate was checked by the College authorities, facts relating to his ineligibility were revealed and that led to denial of admission to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that the conditions incorporated in the admission policy of respondent No. 3 College do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that though admission slip was issued in favour of the petitioner, a general telegram was sent to the Principals of various colleges requiring them to examine the certificates of the students before granting the admission. Therefore, the Principal of respondent-College was fully justified in refusing admission to the petitioner. Regarding Gurinder Singh Cheema, it has been stated by respondent No. 2 that he was given admission in Guru Nanak Engineering College as there is no condition in the policy of admission of that College, requiring that 10 + 2 examination should be passed from an institution within the State of Punjab.

In its separate reply, respondent No. 3 has pleaded that Coordinator, CET Admission-1994 is not a competent authority to give admission in Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib. The said authority has merely issued admission slip and when Principal of the College checked the certificates of the petitioner, it was found that he was not eligible for admission in that College as he had not passed 10 + 2 examination from the schools/colleges situated in the State of Punjab. Respondent No. 3 has further pleaded that a domicile of Punjab is not entitled to be admitted in that College unless he has passed 10 + 2 from an institution within the State of Punjab. Respondent No. 3 has defended the condition of eligibility on the ground that this is intended to safe-guard the interests of students, who have studied in the rural areas of Punjab, who were not in a position to compete with the students coming from outside institutions, where better educational facilities are available.

A short reply has been filed by respondent No. 4 in which it has been stated that Gurinder Singh Cheema has been admitted with respondent No. 4.

First and the foremost argument of Shri Bains is that conditions of eligibility incorporated in the admission policy of respondent No. 3 (Annexure P/11) are contrary to equality clause enshrined in the Constitution. He argued that by incorporating the condition of passing 10 + 2 examination from schools/colleges situated in the State of Punjab, respondent No. 3 has introduced and Pal Singh rational and arbitrary condition for admission and that such condition does not have any nexus with the main object of admission based on merit. Learned counsel argued that reservation of 70% seats for students bailing from rural areas from Punjab is also violative of equality clause as the term "rural-area" has not been defined and in fact a majority of the population in the State of Punjab live in rural areas. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Pradip Tandon and Others, and two decisions of Goa in Mhawla Abdul Aziz Gulam Hussain and Ors. v. Decn Goa Medical College'' AIR 1974 Goa Daman & Deo 26 and Maishya Maheshkukar Jivabhai v. Dean, Goa Medical College, Panaji AIR 1981 Goa . Second argument of Shri Bains is that even if the petitioner is held to be not entitled to admission in Electronics in respondent No. 3 College, respondent No. 2 should have considered his case for-admission in other Engineering Colleges as per his merit and choice of the subject. Learned counsel argued that by its actions, respondent No. 2 led the petitioner to believe that he has a right to be admitted in Baba Banda Singh College and if subsequently it was found that the petitioner is not eligible for admission in that College, it was imperative for respondent No. 2 to reconsider his case for admission in other Colleges as per his merit. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that the petitioner was fully aware of his ineligibility to be admitted in Baba Banda Singh Engineering College and yet he had sought admission in that College and, therefore, he cannot now plead that the conditions incorporated in the admission policy of that College are unconstitutional or arbitrary. Learned counsel further argued that there is no arbitrariness or irrationality in the policy laid down by respondent No. 3 and that the petitioner can have no grouse in regard to reservation for 70% of the students belonging to rural areas. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 invited my attention to a recent decision in Civil Writ Petition No. 7001 of 1994, Meenal Shanna v. State of Haryana and Ors. (19952) 200 P.L.R decided on August 30, 1994 and argued that a provision similar to the one contained in para 1.2.3 (iii) of the admission policy (Annexure P/11) in the said case, has been upheld by this Court. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has no right to be considered for admission in other Engineering Colleges because the admissions are over and all the seats have been filled. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 supported the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and further argued that the policy formulated by the College to give proper share of admission to the students of rural areas does not violate any constitutional provision. Rather these provisions are intended to place the candidates belonging to rural area at par with those belonging to urban area, learned counsel argued.

Provisions contained in para 1.2.3 (iii) of the admission policy are as follows:-

"All the candidates must submit a copy of their certificate of detailed marks obtained by them at the University/Board Examination concerned duly certified by the Principal of the School/College last attended by them. They must also submit a certificate from their Principal stating the subjects in which they have qualified, for deciding their eligibility.

(iii) Admission to Baba Banda Singh Engineering College is open to only those candidates, who have passed their 10 + 2 examination from Schools/Colleges situated in the State of Punjab and are of Punjab Domicile except 4 seats which are reserved for candidates of Punjabi origin settled in other States/abroad for which they will have to produce domicile certificate from the respective State (see paragraph 2.9(f)."

In Meenal Sharma''s case, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, policy framed by the Government of Haryana for admission to MBBS Course (1994), which required that a student should have passed 10th, 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 examination from an educational institution within the Haryana State, was challenged. A Division Bench of this Court considered the matter. The two learned Judges differed on the issue of constitutionality of the provision and, therefore, the matter was referred to the third Judge (myself). After considering various decisions of the Supreme Court including the often-quoted judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, I expressed my agreement with the view of Kapoor J. that requirement of study as a regular student in an institution recognised in Haryana for 10th, 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 classes does not suffer from the vice of discrimination or arbitrariness. It has been held in that case that the Government has the power to lay down a policy of admission and while doing so, it has the right to provide for reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage of seats in schools/colleges within that region. In view of that judgment, I do not find any ground to accept the submission of learned counsel and declare the above referred provision to be unconstitutional. The judgment of Goa in Mhawla Abdul Aziz Gulam Hussain ''s case (supra) was considered by me and distinguished. The second judgment of Goa is based on AIR 1974 Goa Daman and Deo 26 and therefore, that decision is also of no help to the case of the petitioner. Similarly judgment of Supreme Court in Pardeep Tondon''s case (supra) is actually of no help to the case of the petitioner because once it is held that admission policy framed by the College requiring that a candidate should have passed 10 + 2 examination from schools/colleges situated in the State of Punjab is constitutionally valid, the issue relating to reservation of 70% seats for the candidates belonging to rural areas does not call for any adjudication by this Court. In fact if the petitioner does not fulfill the basic condition of eligibility prescribed by the College, he can hardly have any grouse against the reservation of seats in favour of the candidates belonging to rural areas.

Rejection of the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding unconstitutionality of the conditions of eligibility incorporated in Annexure P/11, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. A look at Annexures P/5, P/6 and P/7 shows that Respondent No. 2 did consider the petitioner suitable for admission in Electronics Branch at Baba Banda Singh Engineering College. After the Principal of the College had denied admission to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 reiterated that the petitioner should be admitted and his case should be considered as a disputed case. Therefore, in so far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, the said authority was insistent on admission of the petitioner in the said College. If the petitioner was considered to be ineligible for admission in that College, it was imperative for respondent No. 2 to have properly examined the case of the petitioner and should have considered his case for admission in some other Engineering College according to his merit and preference. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer at both the ends because of the mistake committed by respondent No. 2 in granting him admission at Baba Banda Singh Engineering College vide Annexure P/5. Therefore, a direction is necessary to be given to respondent No. 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for admission in some other Engineering College as per his merit and if it is found that any candidate having lesser merit has been given admission in a branch of the choice of the petitioner, appropriate steps will have to be taken by respondent No. 2 for admission of petitioner in such other College.

In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. Admission policy framed by the College is declared to be constitutionally valid. It is also held that the petitioner did not have any right to be admitted in Electronics at Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib. However, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider case of the petitioner for admission to some other Engineering College, as per his merit and preference and if it is found that he is entitled to be admitted in some other Engineering College, as per his merit, appropriate steps be taken by respondent No. 2 for admission of the petitioner in such college. This exercise must be completed with respondent No. 2 within six weeks of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall continue his study in Civil Engineering, which he is doing in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court.