Bakhtawar Singh vs Panjab University, Chandigarh and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner applied for admission to LL. B. Course run by Panjab University, Chandigarh, for the seats reserved for terrorist victims. The petitioner accordingly appeared in the entrance test and secured 333 rank from amongst 2200 applicants. On the basis of his ranking, the petitioner submitted his admission form, claiming admission in the reserved category quota meant for ''terrorist victims'' by appending relevant documents including the certificate issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in favour of his father. The counselling for admission was held on 13.7.2012. The admission form of the petitioner alongwith documents was thoroughly scrutinized. Finding the petitioner eligible for admission against the seat reserved for ''terrorist victims'', the petitioner was admitted. On the asking of Chairperson of the Department, the petitioner had obtained duly attested copy of certificate regarding he being from terrorist effected family. Having been admitted on 17.7.2012, the petitioner was required to deposit fee for six months, which he did. As per the petitioner, his admission was also approved by the Dean University, Instructions and the Board of Control after due scrutiny. Suddenly on 22.8.2012, the petitioner was handed a notice/memo (Annexure P-10) dated 21.8.2012, putting him to notice that his admission was liable to be cancelled as he happens to be the grand son and not the son of ''terrorist victims''. The petitioner prayed for supply of his admission form and other correspondence, besides praying for reasonable time to respond. His admission, however, was cancelled on the same day i.e. 23.8.2012. The impugned order cancelling the admission of the petitioner was served to him on 28.8.2012. The petitioner accordingly has filed this writ petition to challenge the order cancelling his admission.

The counsel for the petitioner has pressed his pleas rather hard by urging that once the admission is granted even rightly or wrongly, after checking of the documents and where there was no misstatement or misleading done by the petitioner, the University would not be legally entitled to cancel the admission. Inherent in the argument is the fact that the petitioner perhaps would concede that he is not eligible for admission against the seat reserved for ''terrorist victims''. The counsel would further urge that the impugned order is a non-speaking one and has put the petitioner to a great prejudice, leaving him without any options, which were available before him, had he been apprised of his ineligibility at an appropriate time. The counsel claims that the petitioner is a University level sportsman and was eligible for admission in the sports category. He, thus, submits that if he had been apprised of his, ineligibility at appropriate time, he would have sought his admission in the reserved category of sportsman. Continuing with his tirade, the counsel complains that the petitioner had an option to seek admission in the LL. B. Course in any of the Institution under the jurisdiction of Punjabi University, he being a graduate of that University.

I have seriously pondered over the pleas of the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner has suffered due to gross negligence on the part of respondent-University. This is not a case where the petitioner has provided any misleading information to the respondent-University to claim his admission to the LL. B. Course. The petitioner had placed all the documents with his admission form and on scrutiny thereof, he was granted admission. Still, the issue is if the petitioner is/was eligible to be considered for admission in the category of ''terrorist victims''. The petitioner has to show that he is eligible and, thus, can claim rights under law.

A perusal of the show cause notice would show that the relevant rules/guidelines for admission in the reserved category meant for ''terrorist victims'' is regulated by the information provided in the hand book, which has been reproduced in the show cause notice. This shows that 2% seats in this category were reserved for sons/daughters/husband/wife/brother/sister of persons killed/incapacitated in November 1984 riots and persons killed/incapacitated in terrorist violence in Punjab and Chandigarh. They alone are eligible to apply against the seats reserved for ''terrorist victims''. The information as reproduced in the show cause notice and appearing at page 181 of the hand book reads as under:-

(vi) 2% for sons/daughters/husband/wife/brothers/sisters of persons killed/incapacitated in November 1984 riots and of persons killed/incapacitated in terrorist violence in Punjab and Chandigarh. A certificate from the District Magistrate to this effect must be submitted by the candidate. Migrant card alone is not enough.

It is only the children of the terrorist victims who are entitled for admission in the category of ''terrorist victims'' and not the grand children, who can claim this benefit. The petitioner is a grand son of a person who was a terrorist victim and this fact is not disputed. As such, he is held not entitled to admission against the seat reserved for the category of ''terrorist victims''.

In the show cause notice, it is frankly admitted that the application of the petitioner was inadvertently considered and the petitioner was granted admission provisionally. On scrutiny of documents by the Board of Control, this fact has been noticed and accordingly show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Though the petitioner may not have made any attempt to mislead or provide any wrong information but the conditions in the hand book ought to have been to his notice, where sons/daughters/husband/wife/brothers and sisters alone are held eligible for being considered for admission in the category of ''terrorist victim''.

Faced with this difficult situation about his ineligibility, the counsel justifiably struck to his plea that even if the petitioner is considered to be ineligible for grant of admission, his admission once granted can not be cancelled. In support of his argument, the counsel has placed reliance on ratio of law laid down in Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs. University of Jodhpur and Others, The challenge in this case was to the order passed by the High Court, dismissing the writ petition of the appellant therein. Before the High Court, the petitioner had challenged the order of Dean of Faculty of Engineering of Jodhpur University, putting the admission of the appellant in B.E. Degree Course in abeyance till further orders.

It would be appropriate to notice the background in which this issue arose before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The appellant therein was a Diploma Holder and was serving in the M.S.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur, as Administrator/Instructor. On his request, he was allowed study leave. Relying on the resolution passed by the Syndicate that certain teachers of the University were admitted to B.E. Degree Course, the appellant had submitted his application, which was forwarded by the Professor and Head of the Mechanical and Engineering Department to the Vice Chancellor. After considering the facts, the Vice Chancellor accepted the recommendation made by the Dean and granted admission to the appellant in B.E. IInd Year Engineering Course. This order was put in abeyance until further orders. Aggrieved against this, the appellant in this case had approached the High Court but his writ petition was dismissed. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has noticed that there may be a force in the contention raised by the respondent that the appellant could not be admitted and his admission was illegal, but went on to observe that when all facts were before the University and nothing was suppressed by the appellant, it would not be proper to penalise the appellant for no fault of his. It is further observed that admission of the appellant was not made through inadvertence or mistake but after considering even all the objections to the same as raised by the Officer Incharge, Admission, in his note. The appellant had been communicated with the decision of the Dean as approved by the Vice Chancellor, whereafter he deposited the requisite fee.

As it can be seen, the issue in the case of Ashok Chand Singhvi (Supra) was not concerning the eligibility or ineligibility of the appellant for admission. The admission was being referred to as illegal and the Hon''ble Supreme Court did not find any inadvertence or mistake on the part of the University in granting admission to the appellant therein. Otherwise, the Court found force in the contention of the counsel for the respondent-University. The stand of the University that appellant was granted admission through mistake did not appeal the Hon''ble Supreme Court and this contention was not accepted. This ratio of law was laid down in peculiar facts that Dean and the Vice Chancellor had allowed the admission after due consideration, taking into account the objections raised. No doubt, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that assuming that the appellant was admitting through mistake but he was not at fault and it would be difficult to sustain the order withholding his admission. The ratio emerging from this case, thus, would not fully apply to the facts of the present case.

The counsel for the petitioner has then pressed into service the case of Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others, Here, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that it is bounden duty of the authorities to scrutinize papers before allowing admission and University would be estopped from refusing to declare the result, even if the admission was of a candidate ineligible, when he had made no false statement and did not suppress any fact. This was also a case where the appellant before the Supreme Court was a student of three years Law Course.

At the time of admission, he had submitted mark sheet alongwith M.A. Degree certificate. After having been admitted, the appellant therein had completed 1st year Course and was promoted to IInd year. Though he had marched on to final Law Course but his result of pre-law and inter-law examinations, for which he had appeared before being promoted to 2nd year Course, (known as inter-mediate Law Course), was not declared. When the appellant therein represented against this action, the University responded by stating that he had secured 39.5% marks in the M.A. Degree examination and so he was not eligible for admission in Law Course. The appellant made representation pointing out that he had secured more than 40% marks in the said examination, when Chairman of the Board of Studies, wrote to the Deputy Registrar of the University, pointing out that in a meeting held on October 29, 1986, Board had recommended that those students who had passed their M.A. Examination and had secured more than 40% of the total marks, should be considered eligible for admission to the Law Course, even though they had scored less than 20% marks in any of the papers in the said examination. Despite this, the University did not take any steps to announce the result of the appellant therein. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in this case noticed that the qualifying marks on the basis of a regulation did not apply to the Post Graduates classes. They applied only to Graduates. It appears that the what weighed with the Hon''ble Supreme Court was that the appellant therein had pursued his studies for two years. This can be so noticed from the following observations made in the judgment:-

This is apart from the fact that I find that in the present case the appellant while securing his admission in the Law College had admittedly submitted his marks-sheet alongwith the application for admission. The Law College had admitted him. He had pursued his studies for two years. The University had also granted him the admission card for the Pre-Law and Intermediate Law examinations. He was permitted to appear in the said examinations. He was also admitted to the Final year of the course. It is only at the stage of the declaration of his results of the Pre-Law and Inter-Law examinations that the University raised the objection to his so-called ineligibility to the admitted to the Law course. The University is, therefore, clearly estopped from refusing to declare the results of the appellant''s examination or from preventing him from pursuing his final year course.

The action of University in refusing to declare the result was thus not found legal. That is not the situation in the instant case.

For similar reasons, the ratio of law in the case of Ashu Singla v. Punjabi University, Patiala and another, 2004 (2) S.C.T. 484, where the petitioner therein was declared ineligible during II year of his course of Bachelor of Computer Education may not strictly apply to the facts of this case. In Ashu Singla''s case (supra), doctrine of equitable estoppel was applied as the petitioner therein was declared ineligible during IInd year of his Course.

I have, thus, not been able to persuade myself to accept the plea raised by the petitioner that his eligibility for admission in the category of ''terrorist victims'' should be ignored on the ground that the petitioner had not made any attempt to provide any false information or the petitioner did not make any misstatement of facts and, thus, he would be entitled to continue his Course on the principle of equitable estoppel.

However, before parting with this order, I would wish to impress upon the University authorities to thoroughly scrutinize the documents submitted by any candidate for admission to various courses run by the University. Because of the mistake on the part of University, the petitioner may have to waste one year of his education life and accordingly would retard for further progress in life. It is a serious matter if the students are granted admission without proper scrutiny of documents, which lead to cancellation of their admission, leaving them with no chance to pursue any alternative course. This can not be and ought not be taken lightly. It is also advisable for the University to clearly provide conditions of eligibility and all those who are eligible to get admission in various reserved categories, leaving no scope of any doubt and providing the conditions in a clear and categorical manner. Though the petitioner has not made any claim for damages in this petition, but I would leave it open for him to make any approach before any appropriate Forum for claiming damages, if so advised.

The writ petition, however, is dismissed.