Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamalpreet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 13 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: (2003)133PLR48
Author: S.S. Grewal
Bench: S.S. Grewal
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioners were candidates for admission to the various courses in engineering run by the Institutions affiliated to the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training. There were a total of 5445 seats. A large number of candidates had appeared in the Entrance Test. The petitioners were successful. However, despite having proved their merit, the petitioners were excluded from consideration for admission to the course during the first counseling. This was done on the ground that they had not passed the Matriculation Examination after studying in recognised schools in the State of Punjab. Persons who were lower in order of merit were admitted. Aggrieved by the action, the petitioners have approached this Court through these 34 petitions.
2. The basic issue that arises for consideration in these petitions is - Have the Respondents acted arbitrarily, illegally and in violation of Art. 14 in not considering the petitioners for admission merely because they had not studied in recognised Schools or had appeared as private candidates in the Matriculation Examination?
3. Learned counsel for the parties have referred to the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No. 12027 of 2002. The facts may be briefly noticed.
4. The petitioner is a resident of Village Jangpura in District Patiala. She is a resident of Punjab. She was a student at New Baby Model High School, Banur. She passed the Matriculation Examination from the Punjab School Education Board in March 2001. She secured 425 marks out of 650 viz. 65.38%.
5. The Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training (hereinafter referred to as the Board) issued a 'Prospectus for Admission to Institutions' affiliated to it. Applications were invited by April 6, 2002 from candidates seeking admission to the Engineering courses being run at different Polytechnics in the State. At the outset, it was stated that the Prospectus was "common for admission in the Institutions affiliated to the Board and located in the State of Punjab and Union Territory of Chandigarh." The "admissions will be made on the basis of inter-se merit of JET-2002 examination...." The conditions of eligibility for appearance in the Joint Entrance Test were clearly laid down in Clause (A) at Page 57 of the Prospectus. These read as under:-
"A) Eligibility criteria for joint entrance test:-
The admission to the Diploma Engineering Courses shall be made through the Joint Entrance Examination. 85% seats will be reserved for the Internal candidates from within the State and 15% will be open to all candidates on All India basis.
The test shall be open to candidates who have passed the Matriculation or equivalent examination in mathematics, Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) and English, provided that a candidate who has appeared for the qualifying examination but whose result has not been declared shall be admitted provisionally to the Joint Entrance Test but his/her candidature shall be cancelled if he/she fails to qualify himself/herself in the qualifying examination. Such candidates will have no claim, whatsoever, with regard to the admission to any course. The Joint Entrance Test shall be of objective type."
6. A perusal of the above shows that the test was open to persons who had passed the Matriculation Examination or equivalent examination. The petitioner had submitted the application from. She had appeared in the Entrance Test under Roll No. 3496144. She was found to be eligible and an admission card was issued to her. A copy has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition. Thereafter, the entrance test was held on May 26, 2002. The result was declared on May 31, 2002. The petitioner had secured 477 marks out of 1000.
7. Strangely, after the declaration of the result a second Prospectus was issued on June 20, 2002, The candidates were required to submit applications for admission. In this Prospectus, it was laid down that the candidates who have "secured at least 15% marks in the Joint Entrance Test" qualify for admission. It was further provided that the candidate should have passed the Matriculation Examination or equivalent examination "in Mathematics, Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) and English."
8. In paragraph 4 of the 2nd Prospectus, State-wise allocation of seats was made. While doing so, it was inter-alia provided as under:-
"State wise allocation of Seats:-
1. 85% seats will be reserved for the candidates from within the State of Punjab and 15% will be open to candidates on All India basis.
The eligibility criteria for 85% seats will be that the candidate must be resident of Punjab State in terms of Punjab Govt. Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PP-1 Br.) letter No. l/395-3PPl/9619 dated the 6th June 1996 (Annexure-1) and letter No. 1/3/95-PP-II/81 dated the 1st January, 1999 (annexure-III) and have passed qualifying examination as a regular candidate from a recognised institution situated in Punjab. The candidate will be required to submit a certificate to this effect from the Principal/Head of Institution last attended in the prescribed proforma.
i) The above clause of having passed qualifying examination as a regular candidate from a recognised institution in Punjab shall not be applicable to the following categories of candidates:
a) Candidates seeking admission under NRI quota.
b) Children, wards and dependents of the regular Punjab Government employees/ members of All India Services borne on Punjab cadre as well as of those oh deputation from other State cadre with the Punjab Government/Boards and Corporations/Statutory Bodies established by or under an Act of the State of Punjab, posted within or outside the State of Punjab at Chandigarh or New Delhi.
c) Children, wards and dependents of the regular Central Government employees having Punjab domiciles, who have served for at least two years in connection with the affairs of the Pb. Government/Boards/Corporations/Statutory Bodies established by or under an Act of the State of Punjab out of 5 years preceding the year of entrance examination.
d) Children, wards and dependents of those Punjab Government pensioners settled outside Punjab.
e) Children, wards and dependents of military/para-military forces personnel belonging to the State of Punjab as per record at the time of their entry in service (A certificate on prescribed proforma by the Commanding Officer of the Unit has to be furnished); and
f) Children, wards and dependents of the ex-employees of military/para-military forces personnel belonging to the State of Punjab as per record at the time of their entry into service."
9. A perusal of the above criterion shows that for admission against 85% of the seats, the candidate besides being a resident of the State of Punjab, was also required to have passed the qualifying examination viz. Matriculation "as a regular candidate from a recognised institution situated in Punjab." This condition was, however, not to apply to the categories specified in Sub-clauses (a) to (f).
10. The petitioners in these cases complain that the above condition was introduced after they had passed the Entrance Test. The eligibility criteria had been varied to their disadvantage. This criteria is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The classification as introduced by the impugned provision has no nexus with the object of selecting the most suitable persons for admission to the various courses. Thus, the petitioners pray that the criterion be annulled and that they be considered for admission in order of merit as determined in the Entrance Test.
11. The respondents contest the petitioners' claim. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Board, it has been inter-alia averred that for the academic session 2002-2003, the Board had issued two Prospectus. The first Prospectus "was only for the purpose of applying for the Entrance Test." The eligibility for admission is determined by the State of Punjab. It was by notification dated May 22, 2002 that the eligibility condition was provided for admission to all professional courses. The notification was printed at Pages 16 and 17 of the admission Prospectus. The petitioners were studying as private students. In case of the petitioners who claim to have studied as regular students, it is not possible to ascertain the factual position. The condition of eligibility as laid down is valid. The Institutions, which do not have the requisite minimum infrastructure and staff, are not recognised. A student passing out of an unrecognized institution or clearing Matric privately cannot be qualitatively as good as the one who has regularly attended a recognised school. Thus, such a student cannot be at par with another who has studied in a recognised institution. It has been further stated that in unrecognised schools, the necessary infrastructure for carrying out practical etc. would not be available. Therefore, the candidates were rightly excluded from consideration for admission. It has also been averred that last date for submission of admission forms was July 6, 2002. The petitioners were aware of the impugned condition on or after June 20, 2002. The schedule of counseling was announced on July 10, 2002. The first round of counseling was completed on August 5, 2002. It was for the candidates from the 'reserve' categories. For the general category, the counseling had commenced on July 30, 2002. It was completed on August 11, 2002. Thus, the petitions are belated.
12. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been contended that the criterion for eligibility as introduced in the admission Prospectus is arbitrary and ultra vires Article 14. The claim has been contested by the counsel for the respondents.
13. The short question is - Does the impugned criterion violate Article 14 of the Constitution?
14. Admittedly, the Prospectus for admission to the institutions had been initially issued in March 2002. It was a priced publication. The Board was charging an amount of Rs. 250/- for each copy. Still further, a candidate had to deposit Rs. 475/- along with the application from for admission to the Entrance Test. We are informed that a large number of copies were sold. In this Prospectus, a clear condition of eligibility had been laid down, the Entrance Test was "open to candidates who have passed the Matriculation Examination or equivalent examination in mathematics, Science (Physics, Chemistry and Biology) and English..." Thus, every person who fulfilled this condition of eligibility was allowed to compete for admission to the Engineering Courses.
15. In June 2002, the second Prospectus, which was also described as "Prospectus for admission to Institutions affiliated to the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training. Punjab" was issued. While describing the allocation of seats, the eligibility criteria for admission to 85% seats was laid down. It was inter-alia stipulated that:-
i) The candidate must be a resident of Punjab State;
ii) he should have passed the qualifying examination viz. Matriculation, as a regular candidate;
iii) He should be from a recognised institution; iv) The Institution should be situated in Punjab.
These, conditions were, however, not to apply to the candidates applying under the NRI quota or to the children and wards of Government or semi-Government employees posted within or outside the State of Punjab and various other categories.
The first question that arises for consideration is - Is the above criteria arbitrary and unfair?
Admittedly, the petitioners who have not studied in recognised schools have passed the Matriculation examination conducted by the Punjab School Education Board like others who were considered as eligible. They were entitled to appear in the Entrance Test. It is also not disputed that they are eligible to be considered for admission against 15% of the seats to be filed on "All India basis." Still further, persons like the petitioners are eligible to be admitted even against the 85% seats in case they seek admission under NRI quota or happen to be the children, wards or dependents of Punjab Government employees/members of All India Service borne on Punjab cadre. More than this, it is also the admitted position that after the filing of these petitions, the respondents have issued an advertisement declaring that the petitioners and persons of their category shall be considered for admission to the seats left vacant after the first counseling. In this context, it may be mentioned that by an advertisement published by the Board in various newspapers on August 17, 2002, it was specially provided as under:-
"In the second round of counselling to be held on 20.8.2002 (Tuesday) from 8.30 a.m. onwards, the vacant seats will be filled purely on the basis of JET merit. The candidates who have passed Matriculation examination as private students are also eligible to appear in this counselling. The counselling will be held on 20.8.2002 in the Board Office at Plot No. 1-A, Sector 36-A, Chandigarh...."
It is, thus, clear that the candidates like the petitioners were excluded only at the time of the first counselling. Why? Is there a reasonable basis for it?
Admittedly, the petitioners had qualified the Matriculation examination like the other candidates from the Punjab School Education Board. Thus, they were subjected to and were assessed by the name standard as the students from the so-called recognised schools. They had passed the matriculation examination. Still further, all the candidates, irrespective of the schools in which they had studied, were subjected to a common entrance test. Their inter-se merit was not being determined on the basis of the marks secured in examination conducted by different bodies but solely on the basis of a common test. Once all the candidates, irrespective of their' birth mark', bad been subjected to a common qualifying examination by the Punjab School Education Board and a Joint Entrance Test by the Punjab State Board for Technical Education and Industrial Training, there were no justification or basis for treating them differently. The action of the respondents in creating a distinction between the persons who had studied in recognised schools and Others who had studied privately or in unrecognised schools in wholly artificial and has no relation with the object of selecting the best students. The action in ignoring inter-se merit is arbitrary and unfair.
It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that recognised schools have proper infrastructure, laboratories and staff etc. Thus, the quality of education is better. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been urged that primarily the Government schools are the recognised Institutions. The quality of education in these institutions is poor. The infrastructure is basically on paper. The facilities in private Institutions are far better. In any event, both categories of students having passed through a common test, there is no rational basis for treating them differently.
The respondents have placed nothing on record to justify a wholesale indictment of the private schools. The facts become all the more evident on an examination of the result of the entrance test. The facts speak. The petitioners have proved their merit vis a vis the selected candidates. There is no justifiable basis to exclude them from consideration.
Admittedly, the petitioners who were considered ineligible and the others had been subjected to a common examination. They were not only tested in theory but also practically to test their knowledge of subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Still further, all of them have passed a Joint Entrance test. Yet, even those persons who have attained a higher position in order of merit in the Joint Entrance Test are being excluded from consideration for admission. The only basis for this exclusion is the fact that they had not studied for the 10th class examination in recognised schools. In the circumstances of these cases, the action is unfair.
Thus, it is clear that at the time of admission to the entrance test, no distinction was made between the students who had come from private Institutions and Others who had studied in recognised schools. It was subsequently introduced at the second stage of admission after the entrance test had been held. Why? There is no answer. Surely, if the respondents were convinced that the private schools are 'shops' and the students unfit for any kind of higher studies, there was no point in allowing them to appear in the Entrance Test. Surely, the Board was not uselessly subjecting the candidates to expense and wastage of time, money and energy. Having considered the petitioners as eligible at the initial stage, there was no reason for change in the condition of eligibility. In the circumstances of these cases, this distinction has no nexus with the object of selecting the best candidates for admission to the Engineering courses. All the candidates having been subjected to a common test, the admission should be based only on the inter se merit as determined in the competitive test. Any other consideration would be wholly extraneous.
On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that the first Prospects had laid down only conditions of eligibility for taking the test. Not for admission. The conditions for admission were prescribed at a later stage when the second Prospectus was issued. The contention is wholly misconceived. On a perusal of the first Prospectus, it is clear that it was issued "for admission to institutions affiliated to the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab." The conditions of eligibility had been specifically laid down. Thus, the contention as raised on behalf of the respondents cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the government runs the Institutes. It has a right to lay down the source for admission.
In abstract, the contention is impreccable. But the action of the government must conform to the test of reasonableness. The classification of the candidates as eligible and ineligible must have a reasonable relationship with the object of selecting the most suitable persons for admission to the Institutions. What is the position in the present case?
Admittedly, the petitioners and Ors. like them are eligible for admission against the 15% of the seats, which have to be filed up, on an All India basis. Thus, there is no basic lack of qualification, which may warrant, a wholesale exclusion of the students like the petitioners. Still further, by the notice published on August 17, 2002, the candidates like the petitioners have been called for counselling. This is a clear recognition of their eligibility. In fact, it is the admitted position that a large number of seats are available. The respondents are offering these seats to persons who are described as 'ineligible'. However, the complaint of the petitioners is that the Institutions and the Specialities are not as good as those, which have already been filed up. This complaint is well founded.
It has been contended that the petitioners have not made any prayer for setting aside the admissions already made. Thus, no relief can be granted to them.
The petitioners have challenged the very basis on which the respondents have considered their claim for admission. They have questioned the criterion adopted by the authorities. Once the criteria is found to be illegal, the action taken on the basis thereof cannot be held to be legal.
Counsel for the respondents submit that the petitions are belated. Even this contention is wholly fallacious and untenable.
Admittedly, the first counselling for general category was commenced on July 30, 2002. The first petition had been presented to this Court on August 3, 2002 and had been posted before the Bench on August 5, 2002. The petitioners in this situation, cannot be accused of any delay. While directing the issue of notice of motion, it was observed that the admission shall abide by the final decision. Thus, the admissions, which have been made by the respondents during the pendency of the petitions, have to abide by the final outcome. The objection has not merit.
Counsel for the petitioners have contended that the criteria adopted by the respondents being illegal, they should be directed to consider all the cases afresh. This should be don'e purely on the basis of merit as determined in the entrance test subject to the reservation of seats for different categories. Counsel for the respondents submit that the admissions having been made, the interests of persons who have already been admitted cannot be adversely affected.
It is undoubtedly true that the court is normally reluctant to pass orders against persons who are not before it. The principal is well settled. However, it is clear that at the time of filing of the first petition, the list of selected candidates had not even been finalised. Thus, the petitioners could not have impleaded the selected candidates as parties. Still further, even if the respondents were to be asked to produce the list and the petitioners were to make them parties, the exercise would have caused a long delay and defeated a just cause. Moreover, in the present set of cases, the respondents had been informed at the threshold that the admission shall abide by the outcome of the cases. Above all, the criterion adopted by the respondents for admission having been found to be illegal, it is only fair that candidates who are higher in order of merit do not suffer vis-a-vis those who are lower in merit. To illustrate, if a candidate at No. 10 in the merit list has got admission to a popular course like Electronics Engineering against a free seat, the nine candidates who are at Sr. Nos. 1 to 9 in order of merit should not be placed at a disadvantageous position. They should get all the benefits that a person before them in order of merit has been offered. How to do it? It is for the respondents to decide. The Court cannot make the citizen suffer for the fault of the State. Nor can we permit the respondents to take advantage of their own fault by accepting the plea regarding parties to the petition.
16. On a consideration of the matter it is clear that:-
1. The persons like the petitioners have passed the Matriculation Examination from the same Board as the students from recognised schools. They were considered as eligible to appear in the entrance test for admission to all the courses against all the seats. They had appeared in the test and proved their merit. Thus, they cannot be treated as inferior to the candidates found to be eligible by the Board;
2. The petitioners are eligible for admission against 15% seats, which have to be filed up, on an All India basis. Thus, they fulfill the conditions of eligibility and cannot be excluded from consideration against the 85% seats;
3. There is no basis for treating the petitioners differently from the persons who have been considered as eligibh for admission. The classification as sought to be made by the impugned provision is artificial. It has no nexus with the object of selecting the best students from amongst the residents of Punjab. It militates against the guarantee in Article 14 of the Constitution. The action is patently arbitrary, unfair and unconstitutional. Thus, the criterion of eligibility as laid down in the second prospectus cannot be sustained.
17. In view of the above conclusion, we allow these petitions with the following direction :-
1. The admissions shall be made strictly in order of merit as determined on the basis of the Joint Entrance Test in respect of all the seats. This would be subject to reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes etc.
2. In case, the respondents do not wish to disturb the position of persons who have already been admitted, they would offer to the candidates higher in order of merit the same options and benefits as have been given to the candidates already admitted as a result of the first counseling.
3. If for the purpose of carrying out the above directtons, the respondents have to create extra seats or divert these from one speciality to another they would be entitled to do so.
In the circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/- S.S. Grewal, J.