Manju Dogra vs Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering

R.L. Anand, J.—Petitioner Manju Dogra, has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner to the three years degree course in Mechanical Engineering on the strength of her merit position in the promotion test in accordance with terms and conditions of the prospectus which lays down reservation of 50% seats for vertical promotion out of the candidates who were registered in the diploma course.

The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1998, she look the admission in the two year Diploma of Foundry Technology (DFT). She completed the course within the prescribed period of two years. A total number of 35 students were admitted in the Diploma course before the cut off date. The petitioner who had qualified diploma as well as promotion test in which she stood at merit No. 18, applied for admission vide her application No. 6850 in the 4 year degree course in the Mechanical Engineering in the same institute on the vertical entry seat because in the prospectus 50% seats were reserved for the candidates who had done the diploma from the same institute. In the same process of admission, the respondents have admitted 17 students instead of 18 by taking in to account 34 students after calculating 50% reservation, as one student is said to have left the diploma course during the session.

The petitioner represented to the respondents vide Annexure P-3 to consider her case for admission as in other courses this formula has not been applied and in other courses, 50% reservation has been taken on the total number of sanctioned seats even if some students had left the diploma course.

According to the petitioner a discrimination has been done because the University had been giving the advantage of the seat to the next candidate, seat which could not be divided by odd numbers but so far as the petitioner is concerned this benefit is not being granted to the petitioner.

In short the case set up by the petitioner is that in the diploma the number of seats were 35 and that as per the Prospectus (Annexure P-1), the respondents were liable to promote 50% students out of the sanctioned seats of course, which means that the respondents were to promote 18 students out of total 35 sanctioned seats. The petitioner further submitted that her name appears at merit List No. 18, therefore, she is entitled to get the seat in the degree course.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. At the first instance respondent No. 1 and 3 filed the written statement. According to them, during the academic year 1998-99, 35 students were admitted to diploma course in Foundary Technology. Out of 35 students mentioned in Annexure P-2, Ashish Gupta with registration No. DFT/862/98 requested for withdrawal from the said course and sought refund of the amounts deposited by him, immediately after the start of the course, vide letter dated 28.9.1998 and his name was allowed to struck off from the institute rolls vide order No. SLIET/AS/98/8624 dated 28.9.1998. Accordingly, the number of admitted students in DFT course were reduced to 34. This strength of the students was taken for consideration for promotion by vertical entry to higher programme and notice in this behalf was also displayed as would be clear from the decision Annexure R-2. As per the decision, 17 students were to be promoted from DFT to degree course in Mechanical Engineering. 17 students in order of merit have been promoted and as the name of the petitioner was at serial No 18, she could not be vertically promoted to the degree course as she did not fall within first 50% of the strength of students of diploma programme.

It was also pleaded by the respondents that subsequently one more student by the name of Shri Bharat Bhushan left the institution and the strength of the students reduced to 33. Meaning thereby that as per the rules only 16 seats were supposed to be filled by way of vertical entry, but instead of 16, the respondents had given the benefit of 17 seats. Since the merit of the petitioner is at serial No. 18, therefore, she could not get the admission.

From the reply filed by the respondents, it was not clear as to when the classes of the diploma course commenced in the year 1998, therefore, the motion bench gave the direction to the respondents to file additional affidavit which was filed on 5.10.2000 by Shri R.K. Dhir in which he has tried to explain the position of the respondents. This deponent stated in the affidavit that as per the academic calender of 1998-99, the classes of 1st Trimester of Diploma Programmes in 1998 commenced from August 3, 1998. Counting 15 days from 3.8.1998, the. cut off date as per the claim of the petitioner comes to August 18, 1998 and up to the said date, the total number of students admitted in Diploma in Foundary Technology were 30 and if 50% seats have to be filled by vertical promotion, only 15 students were required to be admitted in the degree course. In this manner the respondents have pleaded that if the case of the petitioner is viewed from any angle of vision, she has no case.

During the course of submissions raised on the previous date, I gave the directions to the respondents to produce before me the attendance register of the classes of Diploma in Foundry Technology 1998 Session to apprise me what was the strength of the students on the cut off date and when the classes were started. Today Mr. Govind Goel has produced the register which shows that the classes of DFT of 1998 course started on 10.8.1998 and if 15 days are added, the cut off date would be 25.8.1988. The attendance registershows that initially 31 students were taken into this course out of which six students by the name of Santosh Kumar, Suresh Tewari, Hitesh Makkar, Amandeep Singh and Avtar Singh left the course. The attendance register further shows that thereafter, the respondents had been admitting more students and it admitted as many as 13 students on 28.8-1998. As 1 stated above six students out of 31 left the course and against those six students, 13 students were admitted. Even out of these 13 students again, 5 left the course. Meaning thereby that the strength of the students would be 33 and by giving the benefit of 50% the respondent authorities was bound to give 16 seats by way of vertical promotion. In this case one candidate of the name of Shri Bharat Bhusan also left the course but the benefit of the seat which was occupied by him at one point of time had already been given by the respondents institute by taking the 17th seat.

I have heard Shri Manish Singla, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Govind Goel, Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 3 and Shri Surinder Kumar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Shri Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.

The case pleaded by the petitioner is that total number of 35 students were registered in diploma course initially. If 50% ratio is given to the category of the petitioner, it would mean that the seats come to 17 and a half but rounding off is not permissible. Therefore, only 17 seats will go but merit of the petitioner is at 18, therefore, she does not get the seat in the degree course. If the actual strength of the students is taken after 15 days of the start of the course by making 25.8.1998 as a cut off date then the total number would be 33 and in that eventuality only 16 seats will go but in this case 17 candidates have been accommodated. Therefore, the petitioner again will not get a seat.

Faced with the difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is not clear that how many seats were on the rolls as on the cut off date i.e. 25.8.1988. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per his source of information the classes started on 31.8.1998 and, therefore, the working strength should be taken as on 15.9.1998. In support of his contention he relied upon six affidavits of the students who stated that the classes started on 31.8.1998. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the reliable documentary evident in the shape of the attendance register, which has been shown to me during the course of submissions. It clearly spells out that the classes started oh 10.8.1998. Though it was averred by the deponent, Shri Dhir, that the classes started on 3.8.1998 but I take the document i.e. the attendance register as a reliable one and, it clearly shows that the classes started on 10.8.1998 and after adding 15 days in order to make out a cut off date, it will come to 25.8.1998. On this date the total strength of the students were 31. Therefore, only 15 seats were supposed to be given but in this case 17 seats have been given. If the entire strength is taken as on today, it will come to 33 and in that eventuality only 17 seats will go to vertical entry promotion. The name of the petitioner is at serial No. 18, therefore, she does not get the seat from any angle of vision.

With regard to the discrimination aspect of the case, I am of the opinion that this Court has to go by rules and the terms of the prospectus. It is the case of the petitioner herself that 50% quota has to go by vertical promotion entry. Therefore, she is not entitled to any relief in this case. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon document Ex. P.6. Two wrongs cannot make one right.

Resultantly, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.