Sahiba Chadha vs Union Territory and Others

S.S. Grewal, J.—In brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner Sahiba Chadha was born in Chandigarh on 8th of January, 1977 and did her schooling at Chandigarh right from K.G. to Class 10. She passed her matriculation examination from Sacred Heart High School, Chandigarh in the year 1992. As the petitioner was Tennis Player of exceptional merit, she was selected for one year coaching by the renowned Britannia Amritraj Tennis Academy, Madras (hereinafter referred to as ''BAT'') in the year 1993. The petitioner was the only candidate from Chandigarh for getting specialised coaching in the ''BAT''. During the training the petitioner stayed at Madras and she did her 10 + 1 examination from Madras. After completion of her one year coaching at ''BAT'' the petitioner was sent back to Chandigarh and she joined 10 + 2 classes in M.C.M. DAV College, Chandigarh. She passed 10 + 2 examination held in the year 1994 conducted by Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi by securing 70 percent marks. Thereafter the petitioner appeared in Common Entrance Test conducted by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar for getting admission in Engineering and secured 117.25 marks. She was given rank 2939 in the said test.

The petitioner claims admission to the First Year of B.E. Course Session 1994-95 in Engineering College on the basis of her exceptional merit in Tennis out of the 2 percent quota of seats reserved for sports persons. According to the affidavit Annexure P-5 submitted by the father and natural guardian of the petitioner, the petitioner represented Indian Tennis Team in South Asian Federation Games held in Sri Lanka and obtained Gold Medal. Besides she was runner up in Asian Junior Championship held at Jaipur in March, 1992. She also participated in World Youth Cup held at Spain, Philippines and Thailand in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 respectively. Thus the petitioner has mainly claimed admission to Bachelor of Engineering in the 1st Year course out of 2 percent seats reserved for the sports persons.

In the written statement filed by the respondents through the Principal, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, the main objection taken for denying the admission to the 1st Year Bachelor of Engineering Course is that the petitioner has not passed her 10 + 1 examination from the School or College located in Chandigarh and recognised by the Chandigarh Administration and that the petitioner cannot be considered for admission to the course in question against the seats reserved for sports persons.

Respondent No. 3 in his short reply has stated that in accordance with the criteria and guidelines in the case of the petitioner only those candidates are to be considered for admission to the course in question against the seats reserved for sports persons who have passed their qualifying examination from a School/College recognised by the Chandigarh Administration and situated in the Union Territory Chandigarh as regular students of the said School/College subject to the condition that such candidate must have studied for two years at Chandigarh and have passed one lower qualifying examination from these schools/colleges, and that the petitioner has not passed her 10 + 1 examination as a regular student from a school or college recognised by Chandigarh Administration and situated in Union Territory, Chandigarh and she was not entitled to be considered for admission in the said course against the seats reserved for sports persons as per policy framed by the Chandigarh Administration dated 7th May, 1993.

No separate written statement on behalf of respondent No. 1 i.e. Union Territory, Chandigarh has been filed in this case.

The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

For the sake of reference the relevant clauses contained in Brochure for admission to First Year of Bachelor of Engineering Course Session 1994-95 are reproduced as under:-

"1.1 Eligibility

(i) The admission to the First Semester course will be open to a candidate:

(a) who has passed 10 + 2 (Science Stream) examination with English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics or its equivalent examination conducted by a recognised Board/University/Council, and

(b) has qualified in the CET conducted for admission to the course.

2.2.4 Sports Persons

2.2.4.1 This category shall not be divided into U.T. pool/general pool. The inter se merit of the candidates seeking admission in any course in the reserved category of sports shall be determined only on the basis of their merit in sports as per grading criteria mentioned in the succeeding paragraphs. In case any of the seats in the sports category in any of the branches remains unfilled, the same shall be thrown open to the candidates belonging to general pool category.

2.2.4.2

Benefit of reservation under this category shall be available only to the following category of students:

(a) who pass their qualifying examination from schools/colleges, recognised by Chandigarh Administration and situated in the Union Territory Chandigarh, as a regular student of the said school/college, subject to the condition that such students must have studied for two years at Chandigarh and have passed one lower qualifying examination from these schools/colleges.

(b) students of other States/U.T.s, who have allowed the benefit of reservation in admission in sports category to the residents of Union Territory, Chandigarh.

2.2.4.3

Performance in the following disciplines only shall be considered for the purpose of admission against this category, provided that the association/federation holding the tournament should be affiliated/recognised by the All India Federation of the concerned game:-

1 to l5 *** *** *** 16. Tennis

to 20 *** *** *** 2.1 Total sanctioned Intake: 335 Seats

(a) Candidate who passed their qualifying examination from schools/colleges recognised by Chandigarh Administration and situated in the Union Territory, Chandigarh as a regular student of the said school/college subject to the condition that such students must have studied for two years at Chandigarh and have passed one lower qualifying examination from schools/colleges. These seats will be termed U.T. pool (60% of sanctioned intake excluding Sports seats)

197 (b) Candidates who passed their qualifying examination from school/colleges other than those located in Chandigarh; These seats will be termed as General pool. (40% of sanctioned intake excluding Sports seats).

131 (c) Sports persons (Code No. 30) (2% of sanctioned intake) 07 Total 335."

Even though the name of the petitioner does not figure in the gradation list of the candidates seeking admission in sports category (copy of the gradation list was placed on the record), it was conceded by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is an outstanding sports-woman and because of her excellent performance has better merit than all the candidates whose names figured in the gradation list seeking admission against the seats out of 2 percent quota reserved for sports persons. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently argued that the petitioner is not entitled for admission against the seats reserved for sports persons as she has not passed one lower qualifying examination i.e. 10 + 1 examination from the school/college recognised by Chandigarh Administration and situated in the Union Territory, Chandigarh as a regular of the said school/college.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the interpretation made by the respondents concerning the words ''one lower qualifying examination'' referred to above is erroneous and that the words ''one lower qualifying examination'' mentioned in 2.2.4 (a) would not only connote 10 + 1 examination which is conducted by the school or college concerned, but would also include matriculation examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education.

It is true that clause 2.2.4 (a) is not happily worded and it is not specifically mentioned as to whether one lower qualifying examination would connote 10 + 1 examination only and not matriculation examination which is conducted by the school or college concerned. Under eligibility clause 1.1. contained in Brochure matriculation examination has not been specifically excluded from the category of ''one lower qualifying examination'' referred to above. It is pertinent to note that under eligibility clause 1.1 stress has been laid that admission to the First Semester Course will be open to a candidate who has passed 10 + 2 examination with English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics or its equivalent examination conducted by a recognised Board/University/Council. This aspect of the case supports the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that words ''one lower qualifying examination referred to in clause 2.2.4(a) would certainly include matriculation examination'' which admittedly is conducted by a recognised Board. In case the objection raised by the respondents had been correct and the passing of matriculation examination was to be ruled out of consideration for the purpose of fulfilling condition contained in clause 2.2.4(i)(a) referred to above, then such exclusion would have been specifically mentioned. In that situation instead of words ''one lower qualifying examination'' words ''10 + 1 examination'' normally were expected to be mentioned in the said clause. Mere fact that phrase ''one lower qualifying examination'' also finds mention in clause 2.1(a) meant for admission of candidates who have passed their qualifying examination from school/college recognised by the Chandigarh Administration and studied in Chandigarh as regular student of the school/college against seats meant for U.T. pool to our mind would not make any material difference concerning the interpretation of the said phrase. Besides the interpretation which we have placed on the aforesaid relevant provisions contained in the Brochure shall not only save these provisions from the voice of unreasonableness and arbitrariness but would also help in mitigating the cases of hardship like the present petitioner who either for circumstances beyond their control or for other valid reasons have to leave Chandigarh for a short period and take their 10 + 1 examination as a regular student of school/college situated out side the Union Territory, Chandigarh.

In the instant case, the petitioner had her entire schooling from K.G. Class to Matric at Chandigarh from well known Education Institutions recognised by the Chandigarh Administration. Besides she also passed her 10 + 2 examination from the well known Educational Institution duly recognised by the Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration. During her entire educational career the petitioner stayed at Madras only for one year as she was selected on the basis of her excellence in Tennis for getting specialised coaching in a well known Tennis Academy run under the supervision of National and International Tennis Coaches. The petitioner had participated and won National and International recognised Tennis Tournaments as detailed above. In view of her excellent performance in Tennis the petitioner, obviously has the highest merit as a sports person for getting admission in the First Year of Bachelor of Engineering course against the seats reserved for sports category. She deserves to be admitted in the said course on the basis of her merit in sports category.

For the foregoing reasons, we hereby accept this petition and direct respondent No. 2 to grant admission to the petitioner in the First Year of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) Course Session 1994-95 in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh against the seats reserved for sports persons in the light of the observations made above, in the discipline or speciality which shall be determined by the respondent No. 2/competent authority after considering the merits of the petitioner vis-a-vis other candidates who have applied for admission out of the quota meant for sports persons. The respondent No. 2 or the other competent authority is further directed to complete the entire process of admission of the petitioner within ten days from today.