Vivek Bansal vs Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar

R.L. Anand, J.—Vivek Bansal, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to give regular admission to the petitioner in pursuance to the offer letter despatched on 13.9.2000 (Annexure P-6) in B. Tech. (Electronics) against a seat reserved for candidate from All India quota. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the admission of respondent No. 3, Manish Gupta, who was a candidate of 85% quota meant for Punjab in the B.Tech. (Electronics) as on 18.9.2000 because respondent No. 3 has been wrongly granted seat which was offered to the petitioner.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he passed 10+2 Examination from Dehradun (U.P.). Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, got issued a notice for Common Entrance Test 2000 for admission to 1st Year of Bechelor or Engineering/Technology/Architecture. In the Brochure in Part-B, it was mentioned that 85% seats will be reserved for candidates domiciled at the State and 15% seats will be open to all candidates on All India Basis. In the form (required to be filled in by the candidates), there was a column requiring a candidate to specify as to in which category i.e. either 85% quota or 15% quota, he/she in-tends to apply. The petitioner applied under 15% quota and he submitted the form before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 applied under 85% quota. In the GET, the petitioner got ranking No. 2298. As per the procedure, a candidate desirious of seeking admission in Guru Nanak Dev University must submit a separate application. The petitioner filed an application before respondentNo. 1. In this form, there was a specific column No. 11 requiring the candidate to indicate in which quota, he wishes to apply. The petitioner appeared for counselling on 10.7.2000 but he opted that his name be placed in the waiting list for B.Tech. (Electronics). He also deposited a sum of Rs. 2000/-, which is non-refundable. Respondent No. 2 despatched a letter dated 13.9.2000 to the petitioner to report for admission against one vacant seat in B.Tech. (Electronics) against general category of 15% reserved seats for candidates from All India Quota. The petitioner was advised to report on this date for admission.

It is further alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 passed his 10+1 and 10+2 examination "from the State of Punjab. He has also filled column No. 11 of the admission form by putting that he had passed from Punjab. He is the domicile from Punjab and on the basis of domicile, he is to get admission under 85% quota. Inspite of the above position, respondent No. 3 also wanted to get seat from the All India Quota of 15%. He got the seat under 15% quota which has been wrongly given to him because he was to get seat under 85% quota of Punjab.

The petitioner came to know that respondent No. 1 is not going to give seat to him and instead, it has been given to respondent No. 3. He alongwith his father met the Cp-ordinator. It was represented to the petitioner and his father that since respondent No. 3 did not possesses domicile certificate, therefore, he was considered under 15% quota. The main grouse of the petitioner is that the students of Punjab have been given a large number of seats in 85% quota, therefore they cannot be allowed to encroach upon the rights of the petitioner in 15% quota. The seats of 15% quota would also go to other quota if the candidate from that quota are not available. It was also mentioned that at the time of the first counselling, respondent No. 3 did not reach, therefore, there was no occasion to allow him to shift his option. Also, there is no provision or power to allow shifting from one quota to the other.

Further, it is alleged by the petitioner that he came to know that one Manpreet Kaur left the seat in 85% quota. This seat was of general category and has not been filled up so far and the petitioner can be conveniently accommodated. In short, the case of the petitioner is two fold. A quota of 85% and 15% of Punjab Domicile and All India Students, is a water-tight compartment and no body is entitled to encroach upon the lane of others and secondly, the petitioner can be accommodated because of falling of vacant seat of Manpreet Kaur, under 85% quota, i.e. in general category.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A short written statement was filed on behalf of the Registrar, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. According to this respondent, all candidates who applied against 85% seats are also eligible for 15% seats which are to be filled up on All India Basis. This has been clearly mentioned in the prospectus at pages 3 and 9. So far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, he was eligible under both the categories i.e. 85% and 15%. As per the application, he applied for both the categories. Since he did not get admission in 85% category, he opted to remain on the waiting list of 15% category at Sr. No. 8. His rank was 1137. On 18th/19th September, 2000, petitioner and respondent No. 3, reported for admission and respondent No. 3 was given admission against one seat under 15% category as his position in the waiting list was higher as compared to the position of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 opted to remaip on the waiting list and ne also deposited a sum of Rs. 2000/-. Short stand of respondent No. 1 is that the admission of respondent No. 3 is as per the provision of the prospectus. With regard to the seats which have fallen vacant in the general category are concerned, it is submitted by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner is not eligible for those seats because those seats are in 85% quota and moreover, there are many candidates in the waiting list for those seats who have also deposited the amount of Rs. 2000/-. No separate written statement was filled on behalf of respondent Nos.-2 and 3, but during the course of submission, respondent No. 3 has adopted the stand of respondent No.l.

In support of his case, the petitioner has placed some documents on the record and I shall make a brief mention of relevant documents in the subsequent portion of this judgment.

Learned counsel Mr. Patwalia has also invited my attention to the prospectus of Guru Nanak Dev University during the course of submission in support of his case.

I have heard Mr. Girish Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. H.R. Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3 and with their assjstance have gone through the record of this case.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner was highly critical with the mode of admission conducted by respondent No. 1 and he submitted that all norms and procedures have been put into winds. He submitted that as per policy, 85% seats were made for students of Punjab domicile and 15% was meant for All India Quota. He referred to the admission form of the petitioner, who applied in general category and in 15% quota as is evident from column Nos. 5 and 6 of his admission form (photo copy was appearing at page No. 46 of the file). The learned counsel referred to the admission form of Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar. He drew my attention to column Nos. 7 and 10 to show that the petitioner applied in 15% quota as is evident from indication appearing in the said form (photo copy is at page 45). The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the admission form of respondent No. 3 and he pointedly drew my attention to the admission form of Manish Gupta of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and pointed reference was made to column No. 11 which runs as follows :-

"Have you done your (10+1) and (10+2) from Punjab, Yes (85%), No (15%)

Both the seats of 85% and 15% have been tick-marked by this respondent in the affirmative. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this procedure adopted by respondent No. 3 is illegal. He cannot be considered having passed 10+1 and 10+2 Examinations from Punjab as well as from outside Punjab. In short, Mr. Agnihotri submitted that since respondent No. 3 is of Punjab domicile, therefore, he could only get seat on merit under 85% but he has been offered a seat under other category i.e. 15% category and thus he has encroached the lane in which the petitioner was travelling and the action of respondent No. 1 in keeping respondent No. 3 under 15% quota is illegal.

On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos 1 to 3 jointly adopted the stand by stating that as per the prospectus of respondent No. 1, a candidate who has applied in 85% quota is also entitled to get a vacant seat of 15% quota if his merit is more as compared to the candidate of 15% quota. Since, merit of respondent No. 3 was much higher than that of the petitioner, he could not get seat of merit in 85% quota, but he was certainly entitled to get seat in 15% quota if he could successfully compete with the students of that category.

I have considered the rival contention of the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion, the petitioner has no case to succeed. Admission Bro-chure-cum-Application Form issued by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar clearly spells put as fol-lows:-

"85% of seats shall be reserved for internal candidates from within the Punjab State and 15% will be open for all candidates on All India Basis; meaning thereby that 85% seats shall go to the candidates of Punjab domicile and the candidates of Punjab Domicile can still compete with the candidates of other seats in 15% category and if their merit is more, they can successfully defeat the candidates of other States having less merit in 15% quota".

This position of the prospectus further reiterated as follows :-

"85% seats would be reserved for the candidates from within the State and 15% seats will be open to all candidates on All India Basis". Thus, there is no manner of doubt that a candidate of 85% quota has an edge and a student who had a better footing than that of a student of 15% quota for him, there are two options, one under 85% quota and he can also take the benefit of other seat of merit under 15% quota but this double benefit is not open to the candidates under 15% quota. There is a reason for it because such a candidate who is domicile of other State can also take seat in his own State un der 85% quota.

Now it is to be seen whether merit of respondent No. 3 is better than that of the petitioner or not. Admittedly, his merit is better. The University has acted within the prospectus. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of not happily worded column No. 11 of the application form quoted above. The rationale of the condition imposed by respondent No. 1 in the prospectus is legal and constitutional one and is not violative. In this regard, support can be taken from Anant Madaan and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, and from Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,

The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied upon a judgment of this High Court in Om Ankur Bakshi v. State of Haryana and others 1999(3) S.L.R. 788:1999(3) STC 42 (P&H) and submitted that the condition of the prospectus quoted above by respondent No. 1 is unconstitutional. It gives reservation more than 85% to all the candidates of the Punjab Domicile. He elaborated his arguments by stating that the Punjab Domicile candidate will get 85% seats from that quota and by competing in 15% quota, he can occupy all these seats or few seats making quota of Punjab candidate more than 85%. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not helpful. This judgment simply lays down that extent of reservation for one category should not be more than 85%. Rather, this judgment has been respected by respondent No. 3, when the reservation for Punjab Domicile has not been given more than 85%. This judgment does notsay that a candidate of 85% quota is not in a position to compete the 15% quota. Therefore, the principal argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner vide which a seat was offered to respondent No. 3 in 15% quota has been repelled.

Alternative submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that one seat in 85% quota has become available with the fall of seat of Manpreet Kaur. Respondent No. 3 can be adjusted against this seat and the seats which will become vacant on accommodating respondent No. 3 against seat of Manpreet Kaur may be offered to the petitioner as he was at serial No. 1 of the candidates who appeared for counselling on 18.9.2000. The counsel also submitted and drew my attention to a judgment of the Hon''ble Division Bench passed in C.W.P. .No. 14799 of 2000 dated 19.1.200, in which it was observed that since the seats are lying vacant in an Institution and those might go waste, therefore, some directions were issued to accommodate the petitioners.

I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and in my opinion, this is de-yoid of any merit. Rule of law and equity before law are the principal guiding factors for me to decide this submission. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 13 in the waiting list. Respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No. 8 of the waiting list. He has been accommodated. Still, there are 11 persons, who are senior to the petitioner even in the waiting list and their rights cannot be ignored by surpassing them for the benefit of the petitioner. I had already held above that respondent No. 3 rightly got the seat of 15% quota. A student of 15% quota cannot go in the lane of 85% quota. Therefore, seat of general category of 85% quota cannot be availed of by the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, I find that this writ petition is devoid of any merit. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

Writ petition dismissed.