Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saurabh Aggarwal vs Kurukshetra University And Others on 8 August, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995P&H23, (1995)109PLR94, AIR 1995 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 23, 1994 (2) REVLR 363, 1994 REVLR 2 363, (1995) 109 PUN LR 94, (1995) 1 SERVLR 80, (1995) ILR 2 P&H 120, (1994) 4 SCT 650
ORDER Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. Is a student who has qualified the Combined Engineering Entrance Test liable to be excluded from consideration for admission to a college only because the application form sent by him is received late even though he had despatched it well in advance before the last date? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this petition.
2. The petitioner lays claim to a good academic record. He passed the Matriculation Examination in the year 1992 with 83.2% marks. He passed the 11th class examination with 80% marks and the 12th class examination with 84.2% maks. His score in the subjects of Mathematics and Science was 96% and 87% respectively, the petitioner appeared in the Entrance Test held in May, 1994. He was successful. He was placed at No. 1206 in order of merit out of a total of about 15,000 candidates.
3. An advertisement was published in the Times of India inviting applications for admission in various Engineering Colleges fronr the candidates who had qualified the. Entrance Test. It was inter alia stipulated that the applications must reach the Principal, Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra by 5 P.M. on July 8, 1994. The petitioner submitted his application forms for being considered for admission to the Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra and Sir Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering, Murthal (Haryana). These application forms were sent by Registered A.D. post on July 1, 1994. Copies of the postal receipts Nos. 1791 and 1792 issued by the Post Office, Sector 7, Faridabad, have been produced as Annexures P-2 and P-3 with the writ petition. Wher the petitioner did not get the 'acknowledgment' receipts, he personally visited the offices of the respondents and made enquiries on July 12, 1994. He was informed that the application forms had not been received. He submitted fresh application form on the same day. Later, he found that the original application forms had been received by the authorities concerned on July 14, 1994. The petitioner requested the authorities to consider his claim for admission as he had submitted the application forms in time. Having been informed that his claim for admission could not be considered as the forms had not been received by the last date, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition on July 22, 1994. The petitioner submits that the interviews are to be held in the second week of August, 1994, and that the action of the respondents in excluding him from consideration is illegal and arbitrary.
4. In response to the notice issued by the Bench, three separate written statements have been filed. In the written statements filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 viz. the Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra, the Chairman, Common Engineering Entrance Test and Sir Chhotu Ram State College of Engineering, Murthal, it has been inter alia averred that the petitioner's applications having been received after the last date viz. July 8, 1994, his claim for admission cannot be considered. It has been stated that if the applications are entertained after the last date, it would become "an endless and unmanageable affair" in which the admissions can never be finalised. It has, however, been admitted that the interviews for finalising the admissions are to be held in the second week of August, 1994. The respondents have prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner had not submitted his applications before the iasf date.
5. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Post Master, General Post Office, Faridabad, it has been averred that the re-gistered letter No. 1702 "was correctly delivered to the addressee on 5-7-94 as per report of the Post Master, Kurukshetra, and registered letter No. 1791 was delivered to the addressee at Murthal on 14-7-94. The reasons for late delivery of the said registered letters are being enquired into and the petitioner will be informed accordingly." It has been further averred that the delivery of the letter No. 1791 was not intentionally or wilfully delayed by the postal authorities as both the letters were correctly despatch on the same day.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parlics and perused the record of the case. It is true that submission of applications or consideration thereof cannot be an endless process. A line has to be drawn some where. Only then, timely finalisation of admissions and starting of academic work is possible. Otherwise, the process of admission can gel delayed and affect the academic work. However, it cannot be laid down as a rule that whenever the application is received late, the candidate is liable to be excluded from consideration. Such a course of action may lead to avoidable injustice, arbitrariness and unfair results. In our view, each case has to be examined on its own facts.
7. What is the position in this case?
The petitioner had admittedly qualified the Entrance Test. He had sent his application forms by registered A.D. post from the Post Office at Faridabad on July 1, 1994. This was well before the last date viz. July 8, 1994 The interviews of the candidates were to be held in the second week of August, 1994. During the course of hearing, we were informed that the interviews are to be held from August 8 co August 11, 1994. As such, the admissions have yet to be finalised. Consequently, it is clear that the petitioner had sent his application forms well in time and could reasonably expect it to be delivered to the authorities concerned before the last date fixed for the purpose. Still further, no rights of any person have come into existence in as much as the candidates have yet not been admitted to the course.
8. Mr. Virk, appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 produced before us the original envelope addressed to the Deputy Registrar (Academic) C. R. Slate College of Engineering, Murthal, and the delivery slip of the Posial Department at Kurukshetra to submit that both the forms were received on July 14, 1994. These documents are taken on record as Mark 'A' and Mark 'B' respectively. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point out that respondent No. 6 had categorically averred in his written statement that "the registered letter No. 1792 was correctly delivered to the addressee on 5-7-94 as per report of the Post Master, Kurukshetra", while "registered letter No. 1791 was delivered to the addressee at Murthal on 14-7-94." He also showed to us the two certificates issued to him by the Postal authorities. Be that as it may, on account of the paucity of time, it is not possible for us to enquire into the matter. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had submitted his application forms on July 1, 1994. This was well before the last date. Even thereafter, he did not rest on his oars. He was vigilant. He pursued the matter with the College as well as the Postal authorities. He even submitted a fresh application form, He did all that was within his control. He is apparently a Keen student. Furthermore, the admissions have not been finalised even till today No candidate has been admitted. In such a situation, we are of the view that it would not bejust and fair to exclude the petitioner from consideration. If on the basis of his merit, he deserves to be admitted, he should not be made to suffer as he was not at fault He had despatched the forms on July 1,1994, and could legitimately expect that the applications shall reach the quarters concerned before July 8, 1994. Even if there was delay, he was not to be blamed therefor.
9. On behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kamlesh Gill v. State of Punjab, (C.W.P. No. 7707 of 1994) decided on July 14, 1994. In this case, the candidate had submitted the application on November 15, 1993 while the last dale for receipt at Patiala was November 16, 1993. In this situation, prayer of the petitioner was declined by this Court. Such is not the situation in the present case. Consequently, the learned counsel can derive no advantage from this decision. Reference had also been made by the learned counsel to the decision in C.W.P. No. 12637 of 1993 (Parinder Singh v, The State of Punjab) decided on December 23, 1993. On a perusal of this judgment, we find that no reference has been made to the date on which the application had been despatched. It had only been observed that the application was received on August 16, 1993, while the last date for this purpose was August 5, 1993. It appears that it was a decision on its own facts and lays down no rule for general application.
10. In view of the above, we answer the question posed at the outset in the negative, We hold that the mere fact that an application is received after the last date fixed for the purpose even though it had been despatched well in time and the candidate was not to blame, is no ground for excluding the candidate from consideration. Each case has to be examined on its own facts. So far as the present case is concerned, we are of the view that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay and no right having accrued to any other person, he is entitled to be considered, for admission to the two institutes for which he had submitted his application forms.
11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, in the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.
12. Petition allowed.