Raj Devinder Kaur vs State of Punjab

H.S. Bedi, J. (Oral)

The petitioner applied for admission to the Elementary Teachers Training (E.T.T.) Course for the Session 199698 in the District Institute of Education and Training, Punjab, against 2 per cent seats reserved for the dependants of teachers (serving/retired) category. She sat for the Entrance Test but respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were selected supposedly on the basis of their higher marks against the two seats reserved for the category. The petitioner thereafter applied for and obtained a detailed result card and found that she had obtained 132 marks. She accordingly filed a representation, Annexure P5, before the respondents claiming that she was entitled to admission in preference to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, as she had secured higher marks in the Entrance Examination. On receiving no redress from the respondents, she has filed the present writ petition.

Notice of motion was issued in this case and separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. A plea of laches has been raised. On merits, the stand of the petitioner has been controverted and it has been pointed out that in Column No. 5 of the application form the petitioner had clearly mentioned that she was married and, as such, she was no more dependent upon her mother who was a teacher. It has also been pleaded that once the candidate had applied against a particular category, the said category could not be changed at a later stage.

A replication has also been filed by the petitioner and the plea taken is that the reservation for wards of employees was not permissible in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology v. The State of Punjab, 1997(1) S.C.T. 824 : A.I.R. 1997 SC 793 and in the light of this decision the admission of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had to be set aside as being bad in law and if the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were to be treated as general category candidates, the petitioner being higher in merit would be entitled to admission.

Mr. Puneet Bali, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the petitioner continued to remain a ward of her mother even after her marriage and, as such, she could not be denied the benefit to the reserved seat. He has also pointed out that in the English version of the "Admission Notice" issued, the reservation was for wards of teachers (serving/retired) and the word "wards" would, therefore, have to be read as giving it a broad meaning.

As against this Mr. Thind, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, has pointed out that the Admission Notice given in the Vernacular Newspaper identified this reserved category at ADHIYAPIKA DE ASHRIT NOKRI KARDE/SEWA MUKAT (as dependent of teachers serving/retired) and, in that eventuality, the petitioner not being a dependent of her mother was no longer entitled to the benefit of this reservation.

I have considered the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that it lacks merit. It is true that there seems to be some variance between the English and Punjabi versions of the Notice, but even assuming that the English version was to be accepted and the reservation be read to mean as being for wards of retired/serving teachers, I am still of the opinion that the ward would not include a married child. In Wharton''s Lexicon Law the word "ward" has been described as a child under guardianship. To my mind, to give a meaning that the petitioner would continue to be a ward of her teacher mother even after she had got married would be doing violence not only to the intention behind the reservation but also to the meaning of the word "ward" as a usually understood.

Mr. Bali has then argued that the admission of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was not sustainable in the light of the Supreme Court judgment in Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology case (supra) and, as such, the petitioner as also the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 should be treated as general category candidates. It is true that the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cited case has clearly held that no reservation could be made for such a category of students. To my mind, however, the petitioner cannot take advantage of this situation as she too had applied under this category and as a matter of fact, in the writ petition the primary stand taken was that she should be admitted on account of her higher merit and it was in the course of the replication that a volte face was made and the very reservation challenged by the petitioner.

Mr. Bali has finally argued that the petitioner had admittedly applied as being a ward of a teacher and had clearly so mentioned in her Form and had the respondents raised an objection with regard to her eligibility as she was a married applicant, the petitioner could well have applied for the Rural category instead. This argument, to my mind, is misconceived. The applicant was supposed to fill in the form in accordance with the rules. However, in the Admission Notice itself it has been clearly mentioned that once a particular category had been applied for, it could not be changed at a later stage. Even assuming, therefore, that the petitioner was a Rural category candidate, she could not have sought a change of category.

There is yet another reason as to why the petitioner cannot be granted her claim. It is the admitted position that the course in question consists of four semesters spread over two years, and as of now, two semesters comprising almost one year, have been completed, and it is the conceded position that the examinations for the next semester are in progress. On this, Mr. Bali prays that the petitioner should be granted admission by this Court in the year 1998. This argument again cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner had applied as a ward of a teacher and her admission that category was rightly found by the respondents to be unacceptable. The petitioner, therefore, has no right whatsoever to seek admission on that basis for the year 1998.

This petition is accordingly without merit and the same is dismissed.