Ranbir Singh vs Punjab University and Another

Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.—The learned counsel for the parties have consented the C. W. P. Nos. 11416, 12170 of 1990, C. W. P. No. 14949, 14963 and 14797 be disposed of together involving common questions of law. For the purpose of order, facts Lave been picked up from C. W. P. No. 14797 of 1991 (Ranbir Singh v. Punjab University and Anr.).

The petitioner, a Graduate in Engineering, was a candidate for admission as a part time student to the Master of Engineering Course at the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the ''College''). He was not admitted as he did not complete two years regular whole-time assignment at the Technical Teachers'' Training Institute, Sector 26, Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be referred as the ''Institute''), where he is working till the last date for submission of applications. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not admitting him, the petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition A few facts may be noticed.

The petitioner, who is a Graduate in Civil Engineering, claims to have worked with different organisation from July 1, 1987 till August 31, 1989 It is further averred that in September, 1989, the the petitioner started working at the Institute.

On August 4, 1991, the College invited applications for admission to 12 posts of part-time students to various Master of Engineering Courses including M. E. (Civil Engineering). He submitted the application and appeared for interview on September 16, 1991. The petitioner avers that in spite of his being 7th in order of merit, he has not been admitted to the course only on the ground that he had not completed 2 years service at the Institute by the last date for submission of application viz. August 19. 3991. He submits that the condition requiring completion of at least "2 years regular whole time assignment in that organisation" is wholly contrary to the provisions of Regulation 3.2 of the Panjab University Calendar. It is further claimed that the action of the respondents in denying admission to him while persons with lesser merit have been admitted is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the previous years various candidates like Vikas Tandon and Rakesh Watts were admitted even though they had not completed the two year,s service. The action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioner has been challenged by him on various grounds.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is pointed out that the petitioner was wholly ineligible for admission as he did not fulfill the conditions prescribed in the prospectus. Accordingly, he was not admitted. It is further pointed out that the regulation relied upon by the petitioner only prescribes the minimum qualification for admission to the part-time M. E. courses and that no candidate who did not fulfill the basis minimum qualification "as laid down in the prospectus at the relevant time" has been given admission to the College. On these premises, the claim of the petitioner as made out in this petition has been controverted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties Paragraph 4 of section ''B'' of the Prospectus for the year 1991-92 inter alia provides that "an engineer working on regular wholetime basis in a department/ reputed industry/laboratory may be allowed to join the course as part-time student provided he has completed at least two years regular whole-time assignment in that organisation." Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfill this qualification at the '' time of submitting his application or even by the last date therefor. Accordingly, I am of the view that he was not eligible for admission. The fact that the petitioner had completed the requisite period of service at any subsequent date like the date of interview or admission is wholly irrelevant as adoption of such a course of action would introduce a permanent element of uncertainty. Eligibilty has to be seen by the last date for submission of applications. A candidate who is not eligible till then has to wait for admission for the next session. Otherwise, the authorities would be able to make ineligible candidates as eligible by only postponing the date of interview or admission. Such a course of action would neither be fair nor free from the vice of arbitrariness.

Mr. Malhotra contends that this condition violates Regulation 3.2. This regulation reads as under :-

"3.2 A whole time teacher in the University Department or a College affiliated to the University for the M Sc. Engg. Master of Engg. Degree/M.Sc. Text degree course or a working engineer in a Department/Industry/Laboratory within the territorial jurisdiction of the University may also be allowed to join this course on having obtained at least 50% marks in B.Sc. Engg./B.Sc. Text and on fulfilment of the conditions laid down in these Regulations. He shall, however, register himself for the first semester examination before beginning to attend the lectures, a sessional work etc."

A perusal of the above regulation would show that it prescribes the minimum conditions of eligibility which every student must fulfill the University permits him to appear in the examination. There is nothing in this regulation which may debar the appropriate authority from prescribing a higher qualification. Two years'' regular service as laid down in the prospectus does not in any way violate the minimum condition of eligibility as laid down in Regulation 3.2. It is well-known that the Constitution lays down a minimum standing of seven years at the Bar before a person becomes eligible for appointment to a judicial office. Various States have made rules laying down a longer period of practice at the Bar. Such rules do not violate the Constitutional provisions. Similarly, in the present case Regulation 3.2 merely lays down he minimum condition of eligibility which has been strictly adhered to by the college. In addition, a period of two years service has been prescribed. I am not satisfied that this condition violates Regulation 3.2.

Nor is there any merit in the contention that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It has not been shown that Vikas Tandon etc., did not fulfill the minimum condition of eligibility as prescribed at the relevant time. Learned counsel has not referred to the prospectus for the relevant time. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents it has been categorically stated that no candidate who did not fulfill the condition of eligibility was ever admitted This has not been controverted by fling any replication etc. Accordingly, I am unable to hold that the action of the respondents suffers from the vice of discrimination.

Counsel for the petitioners also relied Upon Supreme Court Judgment in Deepak Sibal Vs. Punjab University and Another, and judgment of this Court in Hari Om Aggarwal v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1990 (5) S. L. R. 676. But these authorities have no bearing on the facts of the present case as the same are distinguishable on facts.

Consequently, all the writ petitions detailed in para 1 of the opening part of the judgment are. dismissed. However, cases of Miss Nandini Kapoor petitioner in CWP 12170 of 1990 and Sushil Kumar petitioner in CWP 11416 of 1990, stand on different footing. They had been given provisional admission vide this Court''s order dated 5-11-1990, at this own risk and responsibility. Since these petitioners are pursuing their studies and the duration of the course is likely to come to an end very shortly, therefore, it will be too harsh if an order adversely affecting; them is passed at the fag end of their career. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the petitioners in these cases shall be allowed to continue and complete their studies.

There will, however, be no order as to costs, in all the writ petitions.