University of Jammu vs Mohd.Akram etc

Bhawani Singh, C. J.

We propose to dispose of this group of three cases (L.P.A.(W) Nos. 610/99 University of Jammu v. Moh'd Akram, LPA(W) No. 614/99

University of Jammu v. Janaid Hussain; and LPA(W) No. 615/99 University of Jammu v. Moh'd Rayasat) by this judgment since they raise

common question for consideration and decision

Petitioners filed writ petition in this Court against the respondents seeking admission in disciplines of Law and Geography. In the brochure

published by the University of Jammu, 9% seats were reserved for ST candidates including Gujjar, Bakarwal, Gaddi, Sippi and those belonging to

backward areas of Leh and Kargil. This part of brochure is quoted below :

(vi) Scheduled Tribes Gujjar, Bakarwal, addi, Sippi and those belonging to backward areas of Leh and Kargil (at least one seat in the

course/programme of study will be provided out of this category to candidates belonging to Leh/Kargil even if the candidate belongs to the Second

preference category.

After publication of the brochure, the University issued corrigendum amending the brochure in the following terms :

Scheduled Tribes including Gujjar, Bakarwal, Gaddi, Sippi and those belonging to backward areas including that of Leh and Kargil (at least one

seat in a course/programme of study will be provided out of this category to candidates belonging to Leh/Kargil even if the candidate belongs to

the second preference category.

The submission of the petitioners is that after having notified the brochure, University had no authority to issue the corrigendum changing the

criteria for admission by including backward area candidates. By adopting this course, their chances have been jeopardised since the admission

has been thrown open to more candidates. The contention prevailed with the learned single Judge holding that the criteria once laid down could not

be altered to the disadvantage of aspiring candidates and the university has been directed to stick to the old criteria laid down by it. The direction

for admitting the petitioners by creation of additional seats has also been issued.

The judgment has been assailed by the University through these Letters Patent Appeals. It is contended that the brochure could not mention the

words which have been included by corrigendum by mistake which has been rectified. It is also contended that correction was made at the earliest

when it came to the notice of the University when applications were at the stage of being received. Moreover, the University could do so and by

this act more people have been given chance of seeking admission against the reserved category. Finally contention is that the mandamus ought not

to have been issued for creation of more seats since doing so at this stage is not possible.

Shri Sherkhan reiterates the contentions which have been raised by him before the learned single Judge and submits that his clients may be

allowed to seek admission as a special case otherwise they will have to waste a whole year. Learned counsel also invokes the principle of

'legitimate expectation' against the appellant on the basis of the brochure for admission issued by it before incorporating the amendment.

We have considered the whole matter. The brochure once issued by the University did not make mention of the category which is included by

incorporation at a later stage. The University was competent to do so. The brochure for admission is an invitation to applicants for seeking

admission. Before a candidate is actually admitted to the course for which he has applied, the University can make amendment to the same in

public interest moreso at a time when process for admission is not completed. We find that claim of the University that it was by mistake that the

item could not find mention in the brochure and that is why the same was included by corrigendum, has force. The question that the petitioners had

legitimate expectation to seek admission on the basis of the brochure as it stood before the issuance of corrigendum, has no substance. Firstly, it

was by mistake that the entry could not find mention in the brochure. Secondly, overriding public consideration of giving chance to candidates from

backward areas by increasing the zone of consideration is there. Thirdly, it cannot be invoked against the policy as to reservation laid down by the

University as to criterion of reservation.

Now the question is whether this Court should direct the University to create more seats to accommodate the petitioners. The Apex Court

decision in case State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla AIR 1994 S.C. 595 prevents us from doing so. We may quote the observations of the Apex

Court recorded in para 8 of the judgment, as under :

The admission in Medical Course throughout India is governed by different statutory provisions including regulations framed under different Acts.

During last several years efforts have been made to regulate the admissions to the different medical institutions, in order to achieve academic

excellence. But, at the same time, a counter attempt is all so apparent and discernible which the candidates, who are not able to get admissions

against the seats fixed by different statutory authorities, the writ applications and interim or final directions are given to admit such petitioners. We

ail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing

the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and regulations. It cannot be disputed that technical eduction, including medical

eduction, requires infrastructure to cope with the requirement of giving proper eduction to the students, who are admitted. Taking into

consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India or Dental

Council of India. High Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the institution and number of admissions, on ""compassionate

ground"". The High Court should be conscious of the fact that in this process they are affecting the eduction of the students, who have already been

admitted, against the fixed seats, after a very tough competitive examination. According to us, there does not appear to be any justification on the

part of the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respondent No.1 on ""compassionate ground"" and to issue a fiat to create an

additional seat which amounts to a direction to violate Sec. 10A and Sec. 10B(3) of the Dentists Act referred to above.

Therefore, there is merit in these appeals and the same are allowed. The judgments of the Single Judge in these cases are set aside.

Appeals allowed.