Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunaina Jodhka vs State Of Punjab And Others ... on 24 August, 2009
Author: Permod Kohli
Bench: Permod Kohli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP. No. 8668 of 2008
Date of Decision: 24.8.2009.
Sunaina Jodhka --Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others --Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.
Present:- Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab for respondent no.1.
Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3.
***
PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) The respondent no.4 issued a prospectus for admission to MDS course in the year 2007. Out of the available seats, one of the seat was reserved for NRIs. Under the aforesaid prospectus four categories for NRIs were prescribed for admission against the aforesaid NRI quota. These four categories were earlier notified by the State of Punjab vide notification dated 21.3.2007. The following categories of NRIs were prescribed:-
" Category I: NRIs who originally belonged to the State of Punjab.
Category II: NRIs who originally belonged to an Indian State other than Punjab.
Category III: Third preference will be given to those Indian candidates who are sponsored by NRI and sponsorship letter is attached with the application.
Category IV: Fourth preference will be given to those Indian candidates who are ready to pay fee in Indian currency equivalent to US $ as prescribed in para 27 above."CWP. No. 8668 of 2008 -2-
The petitioner applied in the month of March, 2007 for admission to MDS seat in Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry in Christian Dental College, Ludhiana under the NRI quota category IV, referred to above. She participated in the entrance test, conducted on 23.4.2007 and was placed at No.2 in the merit under the said category. The 1st candidate did not claim the seat and thus the petitioner was permitted to deposit the prescribed fee in US $ 45,000/- on 30.4.2007 and thereafter she was admitted to the course, the classes for which commenced on 1.5.2007.
After the petitioner joined the course the college sent registration to Baba Farid University. In the meantime the Punjab Govt. issued a notification dated 13.7.2007, deleting categories no. III and IV of the NRIs quota. Based upon the deletion of the aforesaid category the Registrar, Baba Farid University vide letter dated 30.7.2007 returned the registration papers of the petitioner to the college. In the meantime, the State Govt. issued another notification dated 3.8.2007 (Annexure P-4), whereby the left over seats of NRI quota were permitted to be filled up as management quota on the fee chargeable from the NRI seats. In view of the aforesaid notification the Christian Dental College vide its letter dated 20.8.2007 requested the university for the change of category of the petitioner from NRI to management. The respondent-university in response to the aforesaid communication sought details of the fee charge from the petitioner for the purpose of processing the application vide its letter dated 8.10.2007. The college-responded to the aforesaid letter and gave the details to the university. In the meantime, the petitioner completed her thesis and submitted to the university for evaluation. It appears that the university had some apprehension about the conversion of the seat from CWP. No. 8668 of 2008 -3- NRI quota to Management quota and accordingly vide its communication dated 20.8.2007 the college was asked to get orders from the Court regarding the admission of the petitioner. Coming to know of the aforesaid details, the petitioner made a detailed representation dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P-10) to the university. Since the issue regarding the admission of the petitioner could not be decided, the petitioner has approached this Court through the medium of the present writ petition seeking a direction for quashing the letter/communication dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure P-9) and for a further direction in the nature of mandamus to treat the petitioner's admission under management quota in terms of notification dated 23.8.2007.
The university in its reply has taken a stand in view of the deletion of clauses (iii) and (iv) from the notification dated 13.7.2007 and pleaded that petitioner's admission is bad in law and she cannot continue her studies. It is further stated that in view of the deletion of the category the university sought the factual position from the college and requested for seeking orders from the Court. Apart from that Mr. T.S. Dhindsa, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 has relied upon a judgement of Division Bench dated 24.7.2007 passed in CWP No. 10486 of 2007. In the aforesaid judgement the notification of the State Govt. deleting the categories No. III and IV vide notification dated 13.7.2007 has been upheld and the writ petition challenging the said deletion has been dismissed. Based upon the aforesaid judgement, it is contended that since the category to which the petitioner was admitted, stands deleted and the petitioner's admission per se is bad.
CWP. No. 8668 of 2008 -4-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is not in dispute that at the time of admission of the petitioner to the MDS Course the category in question was in operation. The petitioner was admitted against the said category. It is also admitted that subsequently vide notification dated 13.7.2007 the State Govt. deleted the categories no. III and IV. The deletion notification has not been placed on record but the fact remains that the categories have been deleted on 13.7.2007, whereas the petitioner was admitted to the course on 30.4.2007 for which the classes commenced on 1.5.2007 i.e. prior to the issuance of the aforesaid deletion notification. The deletion notification is not retrospective in nature. Otherwise also, it is settled law that every enactment even the notifications are prospective in nature unless made retrospective in accordance with law. The notification has not been made retrospective and thus cannot effect the admission already made. Apart from that even while deleting the aforesaid two categories through notification dated 13.7.2007 the State Govt. issued another notification dated 3.8.2007 permitting the management to convert the unfilled NRI quota seats into management quota. There was one seat under NRI quota for the course opted by the petitioner. The management in its wisdom converted the seat into management quota and approached the university vide letter dated 20.8.2007 for registeration of the petitioner against the management quota seats. The respondent-university, however, kept on communicating with the college without effectively deciding the matter. In terms of the notification dated 3.8.2007 the seat could be validly converted into management quota. Even under the prospectus such a conversion is permissible. The petitioner was admitted in the course in the year 2007 and has already completed more than two years. CWP. No. 8668 of 2008 -5-
In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. Admission of the petitioner was legally valid. Otherwise also, the same has been converted into management quota and thus, there is no illegality in the admission of the petitioner. This petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall be permitted to complete her course in accordance with rules and on successful completion entitled to degree etc. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 24.8.2009 lucky Whether to be referred to Reporters? Yes.