Upendra Sharma vs State of Punjab

R.C. Kathuria, J.—In this writ petition, the peti- tioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to admit him to Bachelor of Engineering Three Years Course of the Mechanical Engineering in the second year/third semester under the Lateral Entry Scheme.

The petitioner did his 10+2 examination (Non-medical) from the Central Board of Secondary Education in the year 1997 as a student of Government Model Senior Secondary School, Chandigarh. Thereafter, he joined three years Diploma Course in Mechanical Engineering as a student of Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ''the Board"). He appeared in the examination of the aforesaid Diploma Course in May 2000. Before the declaration of his result in the aforesaid course, he applied for admission to second year/third semester of Bachelor of Engineering/Technology under the Lateral Entry Engineering Test-2000 (hereinafter referred to as LEET-2000) on 16.7.2000. The eligibility criteria for LEET-2000 laid in the prospectus is that the candidate should have passed Diploma in Engineering/Technology under the relevant branch from the Board or Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology (hereinafter referred to as ''SLIET''), with a minimum of 60% marks in aggregate or equivalent grade point in case of SLIET Diploma. The petitioner secured 2942 marks out of total marks of 4800 which comes to 61.29% in the last year of the Three Year Diploma Course, result of which was declared on 1.8.2000. The petitioner had appeared in LEET-2000 on 16.7.2000 and secured 250 marks out of 600 and was ranked 35 among the general category candidates. When he appeared for counselling on 18.8.2000, he was informed that he was ineligible to seek admission to the said course as he did not fulfil the eligibility cretieria as laid down in Rule 26 of the Examination Rules of the State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the Examination Rules'') adopted by respondent, according to which award of the year in which the candidate is to be placed is to be determined on the basis of the percentage of marks in different semesters. For the first two semesters 25% marks were to be taken into account. In the third and fourth semesters credit upto 50% of the marks is to be given. For the fifth and sixth semesters 100% marks are required to be taken into account. Applying the above system of awarding marks, he was denied admission to the course. It has been averred by the petitioner that the action of the respondents in denying admission to the course to him was in violation of para 3 of part-A of LEET-2000 prospectus/information-cum-admission brochure and the methodology of determining eligibility to the course on the basis of award of division as laid down in the aforesaid Rule 26 was never indicated in the prospectus. Therefore, respondent No. 3 could not deviate from the provisions of the prospectus which has force of law. It was also pleaded by him that the adoption of the examination rules of the Board, Chandigarh had no legislative sanction and validity in terms of the provisions of Sections 38 and 39 of the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act of 1992''). On these premises, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition was contested by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. No written statement was filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 1 in its short reply stated that the State Government vide notification dated 4.3.2000 had authorised the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, respondent No. 2, as the competent authority to take the LEET-2000 and to make admission on merit in the said test. Therefore, the relief claimed in the petition relates to respondent No. 2, which is an autonomous and statutory body. Respondent No. 4 in its detailed reply, while controverting the stand of the petitioner, pleaded that the criteria for determining the award laid down in Rule 26 of the Examination Rules, which was in existence prior to the constitution of the Board under the Act of 1992, was saved by the provisions of Section 40 of the said Act 1992. As per methodology prescribed, the petitioner had secured 59.1% marks against the minimum requirement of 60% marks. It was further explained by respondent that in Three Year Diploma Course there are six semesters. In the first two semesters of Diploma in Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engineering etc. subject are common. During the second year, some of the subject relate to the particular branch in which diploma is to be awarded. The subjects in the fifth and sixth semesters exclusively relate to the branch in which diploma is to be awarded. In view of this, 25% of marks obtained in first two semesters are taken into consideration. In the second year, as some subject are common to all branches/specialties and some exclusively deals with the relevant specialities, therefore, 50% of marks obtained in the third and fourth semesters are taken into account for the purpose of determining the aggregate. In the fifth and sixth semesters, as the subjects taught deal exclusively with the speciality in which diploma is to awarded, 100% marks obtained in the third year are taken into consideration. On that basis, a candidate, who gets more marks in the concerned speciality, is placed at a higher level than a candidate, who secures less marks in the speciality. The petitioner, as per data given in Annsxure-P.3, has secured more marks in first two semesters which deal with General Sciences only whereas the marks obtained in the fifth and sixth semester arc quite less. As the diploma was to be awarded to the petitioner in Mechanical Engineering, therefore, marks obtained in third year were taken into consideration. It is further case of respondent No. 4 that in case stand of the petitioner is accepted and full consideration is given to the marks obtained it) all the semesters, it would create an anomalous situation as a candidate who is good in General Sciences and poor in relevant speciality, such as Civil Engineering or Mechanical Engineering would secure first Division in Diploma although he may not be good in the respective branch. Thus, upholding the validity of Rules 26 of the Examination Rules, the action of respondent No. 2 in denying admission to the petitioner was justified.

There is no factual dispute with regard to the marks earned by the petitioner in the six semesters during the period of three years of the diploma course. The controversy relates entirely to the methodology of evaluation for the purpose of determining eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus read with Rule 26 of the Examination Rules. It is necessary to notice the marks earned by the petitioner in the six semesters of the diploma course in detail, as mentioned in An-nexure-P.3 and the same are as under :-

"J.R. Government Polytechnic Hoshiarpur Provisional Certificate H. No. 8565 Dated: 17.8.2000.

This is to certify that Mr. Upendra Sharma son of Shri M.R. Nag, Regd. No. 199722033200 Roll No. 345/97 has been student of this Polytechnic from August 1997 to May, 2000. He/she has passed the 3 years Regular Diploma Examination in Mechanical Engineering conducted by the Slate Board of Technical Education Punjab Chandigarh in May, 2000. He cleared the last Semester vide Notification No. 0005/5306 dated 1.8.2000.

He bears a Good Moral Character. During his stay has earned the following academic record :

Sr.No.

Semester/ year

Month/year

State Board Roll No.

Marks obtained Max. Marks

1.

First

12/1997

199722033206

526/800

2.

Second

05/1998

548/800

3.

Third

12/1998

-do

492/800

4.

05/1999

-do-

472/800

5.

Fifth

12/1999

-do-

435/800

6.

Sixth

05/2000

-do-

469/800

7.

Seventh.

8.

Eighth

Sd/- Head of the Deptt. Sd/- Principal J.R. Govt. Polytechnic, Hoshiarpur."

Coming to the eligibility criteria laid in the prospectus/information-cum-admission brochure issued under the authority of respondent No. 2, reference is to be made to the relevant provisions of para 3, which are as under:

"3. Eligibility Criteria for LEET-2000

The eligibility criteria shall be a pass in the Diploma in Engineering, Technology in relevant branch from Punjab Stale Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, or Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology (SLIET), Longowal with a minimum 60% marks in aggregate (or equivalent grade point in case of SLIET Diploma).

Candidates who have appeared/are appearing in qualifying Diploma examination to be held during the current session shall also be eligible to appear in the test but admission of those candidates to the Entrance Test shall be provisional and shall stand cancelled if they fail to obtain the requisite qualifications before the date of start of counselling (i.e. 13.8.2000). Such candidates will not have any claim whatsoever with regard to the admission to the courses through LEET-2000.

The eligibility for various degree courses and their relevant Diploma streams is as given below :

No.

B.E./B. Tech/B. Arch.Degree Engg- Course

Diploma/Disciplines eligible for admission.

1.

2.

XX

XX XX XX

3.

(a) Mechanical Engg.

(a) 3 years/4 years diploma in

(i) Mechanical Engg.

(b) Industrial Engg.

(ii) Production and Industrial Engg.

(iii) Refrigeration and Air Conditioning

(b) 2-1/2 years diploma alter 10+2 from SLIET, Longowal in

(c) Production Engg.

(i) Foundry Technology

(ii) Industrial/Production Engg.

(iii) Maintenance Plant & Machinery

(iv) Welding Technology"

At this stage provisions of Rule 26 of the Examination Rules have to be noticed and are in following terms:

"26. Award of division (for courses other than Pharmacy Course) :

In order to determine the division in which a candidate be placed for the award of diploma, the following percentage of marks in different examinations shall be taken into account:

(A) Semester System Courses :

Sr. No.

Examination

3 Years Course

4 year Course

Post-diploma Course

1st Semester

25%

100%

2.

2nd Semester

25%

25%

as per

3.

3rd Semester

50%

25%

Evaluation

4th Semester

50%

25%

Scheme

5.

5th Semester

100%

50%

6.

6th Semester

100%

50%

7.

7th Semester

100%

8.

8th Semester

100%

(B) Annual System Courses :

Sr. no.

Examination

3 year

2 year

1 year course

1.

1st year

25%

50%

100%

2.

2nd year

50%

100%

3.

3rd year

100%

(b) A candidate who obtains:

(i) 70% or (more) marks, shall be placed in the first division with Honours, provided the passes all the examinations in the first attempt,

(ii) 60% or more but less than 70% of the marks, shall be placed in the first division, and

(iii) Less than 60% marks shall be placed in second division."

The Act of 1992 was notified in the gazette on 19.1.1993 and from that date it had come into force. Section 38 of the Act of 1992 empowers the State Government to make rules in order to carry out the purpose of the Act while Section 39 enables the State Government to make regulations consistent with the Act. Section 40 of the Act, which has a bearing on the controversy, reads as under:

"40. Saving and repeal:- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any rule or regulation with regard to affiliation, admission, migration, curricula, staff, examination or any other matter, as applicable before the commencement of this Act, shall remain applicable as such, till rules or regulations are framed under this Act."

The entire thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 could not invoke the methodology of granting award in terms of Rule 26 of the Examination Rules because that has would be contrary to the provisions of prospectus which has the force of law and furthermore reliance on Rule 26 ibid is misplaced because no indication whatsoever has been given in the prospectus with regard to the determination of the award. Additionally, it was contended by him that, the adoption of the Rules by the Board took place on 16.8.1993 which is later to the enforcement of the Act of 1992 and for that reason such an adoption cannot put any limitation on the operation of the eligibility provisions contained in para 3 of the prospectus. While making this submission, the factual position has been ignored. It is clear from the copy of the Examination Rules of the Board issued in July, 1994 that a meeting of the Board was held on 8.6.1993, wherein it was decided that for the word "Directorate" of Technical Education and Industrial Training appearing in these rules and regulations was substituted with the word "Board". Similarly, the officers of the Directorate of Technical Education and Industrial Training wherever appearing in the existing rules and regulations were substituted by the word "Member Secretary or any other person authorised by the Chairperson." Reading of these rules clearly indicates that these Rules have come into force from July 1989 and have been made applicable to the candidates admitted in and after July, 1988 session for the conduct of the Punjab State Board of Technical Education Examination for courses covering semester system and annual system including pharmacy courses. Therefore, it is apparent that only cosmetic amendments were carried out in the meeting held by the Board on 16.8.1993 and no amendments relating to the courses covering semester system or annual system were effected. In view of this position, provisions of Section 40 of the Act of 1992 would save any rule or regulation with regard to examinations which were applicable before the commencement of the Act of 1992. Only those provisions of Rule 26 ibid would not apply which are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1992. Thus, there is no merit whatsoever in the stand taken from the side of the petitioner that adoption of these rules had taken place on 16.8.1993.

Coming to the main limb of the stand taken from the side of the petitioner, no doubt provisions of the prospectus have the force of law and the eligibility for admission to course has to be determined according to the prospectus issued before the entrance examination. In this case, the eligibility criteria laid in the prospectus provided that the candidates should have minimum of 60% marks in aggregate in the Diploma in Engineering and Technology in the relevant branch from the Board or equivalent grade point in case of SLIET diploma. For arriving at the aggregate of 60% marks as laid down in this clause of the prospectus, respondent No. 2 is fully justified in working out the aggregate after taking into account marks earned in the semesters as laid down in Rule 26 of the Rule ibid. Merely because this rule speaks of determination of division of the candidate for the purpose of the award of the diploma is no impediment because ultimately the percentage of the marks in different stages of examination is sought to be taken into account by the rule itself. Therefore, this rule has to be read as supplementary to the prospectus in view of the enabling provision of Section 40 of the Act of 1992. Rather, this being the professional course, there is a definite rationale behind the adoption of they system of evaluation on the basis laid down therein for the purpose of determination of the respective merit of the candidate. Apart from the position explained above, the provisions of Rule 26 cannot be construed as violating or limiting the operation of clauses 3 of the prospectus. Therefore, respondent No. 2 was fully justified in denying admission to the course.

For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Under the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs

Petition dismissed.