Vipin Kumar vs Punjab University, Chandigarh and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner claims to have taken part in 14th Asian Roller Sports Championships held on 23.7.2010 at Taiwan and ranked 3rd and was conferred a bronze medal. He also participated in 48th Senior Artistic Skating, Roller/Inline Hockey & Speed Skating Championship held from 6th to 11th January, 2011, where he won bronze medal. The sport played by the petitioner is recognized by Government of India and also by International Olympic Committee. In the year 2010, the petitioner took part in 47th Junior National Roller Skating Championships, Speed Skating Quads and Inline Events at Visakhspatnam, which was a national event. Similarly, the petitioner has also given details of various tournaments, where he had participated in the said sport. After passing 10+2 examination in the year 2011, the petitioner appeared in Common Entrance Test for five years Law Course conducted by the Punjab University. He applied for admission in two categories i.e. B.A. LL.B. and B.Com. LL.B. The petitioner was put in general category in B.Com. LL.B., at No. 245 while in B.A. LL.B., at No. 622. He submitted an application alongwith requisite certificates alongwith certificate of backward class. The rank of the petitioner in B.C. Category in B.Com. LL.B. Five years course was 7th whereas in B.A. LL.B. Five years course, it was 26th. The petitioner has claimed for consideration of his case against 2% Sports Quota as per Clause 10 of Guidelines of Punjab University, 2011. These guidelines are reproduced in the writ petition, which are as under:-

(i) The case of sports persons with achievement in games/disciplines not included in Annexure I, but excelling at National/International level;

(ii) Outstanding sportsperson who are not eligible for the participation in the Inter-College & Inter-University tournaments (on account of expiry of active eligibility period for the participation in the Inter-College/Inter University competitions) and contributed Punjab University in their part by bringing laurels;

Their case recommended by the Directorate of Sports, may be considered by the Vice Chancellor for admission to a particular course by creating at additional seat to the extent of 2% seats in the respective course. These seats shall be treated as being in addition to the approved strength of the course in that year only. Sports persons wishing to avail Clause 10 should submit a separate application along with the concerned department''s Admission Form.

Since the petitioner had also applied for admission in Backward Class category as well as sports quota, he claims that he deserves to be admitted against the sports category. His claim in this category was not considered as the sport played by the petitioner was not one of the recognized sport, as were listed in the prospectus issued by the University. Accordingly, the petitioner claims that 2% seats in this course can only be considered for those candidates who have excelled in sport at National and International level in terms of Clause 10 of Guidelines of Punjab University, 2011 as reproduced above.

The claim of the petitioner has been declined primarily on the ground that Vice Chancellor does not have any jurisdiction to extend the number of seats, which are 180, available for admission in this course. The reason in support of this is that sanction of Bar Council of India would be essential condition for extending the number of seats fixed for this course. The petitioner otherwise has been granted admission under the Backward Class category.

The only grievance of the petitioner now is that he deserves admission at Punjab University, Chandigarh instead of Regional Centre at Ludhiana. For this purpose, the petitioner has separately moved for seeking migration. The said plea was not raised in the petition as it would not have been available to the petitioner at the stage when this writ petition was filed. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to deal with this part of the plea, which is subsequently raised in the replication. Since the petitioner has already been admitted, it is only a case of migration. I am not inclined to interfere or to examine the effect of Clause 10 of Guidelines of Punjab University, 2011 contained in the prospectus. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, this will not be a bar for the petitioner to pursue his case for seeking migration in accordance with law.