Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwinder Kaur vs Punjab University, Chandigarh And Anr. on 30 November, 1988
Equivalent citations: AIR1989P&H190, AIR 1989 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 190
ORDER Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. This order of mine will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 8065 and 8362 of 1988, filed by Ashwinder Kaur and Ritu Chadha, respectively, as identical questions of law and facts are involved in both the writ petitions. The petitioners in both the writ petitions have challenged the criteria for admission to the course of Master of Library and Information Science for the Session 1988-89. The said criteria has been assailed on the ground that the petitioners had better merits in comparison to the candidates selected for admission, despite that they have been denied admission by adopting a criteria which is foreign to the Department of Library Science prospectus and the University Calendar.
2. Main order is handed down in CWP No. 8065 of 1988. For that purpose, brief facts are taken from that writ petition. Petitioner Ashwinder Kaur, who is a Graduate from the Punjab University, did her Bachelor of Library Science Examination in April, 1988 by securing second position in the Punjab University, securing 66% marks in that examination. The petitioner also passed M.A. in Economics. She applied for admission to the M. Lib. Course for the year 1988-89 but she was not granted admission. One Anandeep Kaur, who stood first in the B. Lib. Science Course, was also denied admission in the Master of Library and Information Science Course, but was subsequently, under the orders of this Court, given admission in the said Course. The Vice-Chancellor confirmed the admission by creating one seat for her. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in Master of Library and Information Science Course for the Session 1988-89.
3. Both the writ petitions have been argued on three basic points; firstly, that for the purpose of admission, a new qualification of Master's Degree has been illegally inducted or introduced through the notice of admission in complete violation of the provisions laid down in the University Calendar and prospectus for 1988-89; secondly that the direct and indirect reservation of seats is much too excessive and lastly that the procedure laid down for 'normalisation' is neither rational nor justifiable.
4. It is admitted by both the parties that the minimum qualification for admission to Master of Library and Information Science Course as per the university calendar and the prospectus, is as under :--
1. The Punjab University Post-Graduate Diploma in Library Science (One year Course) or the Punjab University Bachelor of Library Science Degree, with at least 50 per cent marks in the aggregate or either of them.
or
2. A diploma or degree of another University recognised by Syndicate as equivalent to (i) with at least 50% marks in the aggregate.
As against this, the notice of Admission which has been reproduced in its entirety in Exhibit R/1 to the written statement in C.W.P. No. 8362 of 1988, laid down the criteria for admission to M. Lib. & Information Science in the following terms : --
"Criteria for Admission
(i) Candidates will be admitted on the basis of their merit in Post-Graduate Diploma (P.G.Dip)/Bachelor of Library & Information Science examination together with their merit in the Master's/Bachelor's degree (other than Library & Information Science) in the following order : --
Candidates having :
(i) P.G.Dip.Lib.Sc/B.Lib. & Inf.Sc. with 50% marks and above and Master's Degree with 55% marks and above.
(ii) P.G.Dip.Lib.Sc./B.Lib & Inf. Sc. with 50% marks and above and
(iii)P.G.Dip.Lib.Sc.B.Lib. & Inf.Sc. with 50% marks and above and Master's Degree with at least 50% marks;
(iv) P.G.Dip.Lib.Sc./B.Lib. &Inf. Sc. with 50% marks and above and Master's Degree with less than 50% marks or Bachelor's Degree with less than 60% marks."
Two things are distinctly noticeable in this criteria viz. possession of Master's degree has not only been added as one of the criteria for admission but it has also been given overriding preference vide para (i)(i) reproduced above. There is, however, no mention in the calendar or the prospectus of Master's Degree being one of the qualifications or criteria for admission much less being the overriding condition for the admission, as has been made out in the Notice for Admission.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for admission to the Master of Library and Information Science Course, the primary condition has been very correctly prescribed as possession of P.G. Dip/B.Lib and Information Science with minimum of 50% marks in the calendar and the prospectus. It is further contended that the percentage of marks obtained in BA/BSc/M.A/M.Sc. is not at all relevant for admission to Master Degree in Library and Information Science, because these degrees and marks obtained in these are the qualifications and criteria prescribed for admision to the lower course in the Library Science which is B.Lib & Information Science as will be evident from perusal of Admission Raquirements for B.Lib. & Information Science Course printed on page 2 of the prospectus.
6. Mr. N.K. Sodhi learned counsel for the University does not dispute the fact that the University calendar and prospectus do not prescribe Master's Degree as one of the requirements for admission to Master's Degree Course in Library and Information Science and that what is mentioned in these documents is that the minimum qualifications for admission shall be possession of Diploma/Degree in Library Science. He, however, contends that adding of a higher qualification e.g. M.A.M.Sc. through a Notice of Admission is not barred. He further contended that MA/M.Sc. was added as a preferential qualification on the basis of the recommendations of the University Grant Commission for appointments to various positions and in the field of Librarianship and that Master of Library Science is a preferential and job oriented course.
7. I have given serious thought to the above arguments and perused the relevant documents including the recommendations of the University Grur, Commission. I do not find any justification for introducing Master's Degree as the overriding criteria for admission to Master of Library and Information Science Course through the Notice of Admission and consider it to be violation of the provisions contained in the university calendar and the prospectus. The mention of University Grant Commission recommendations is apparently not relevant as these relate to criteria for appointments to the various grades of librarians and not for admission to the courses of library science. In fact, even these recommendations give preference to Master's degree in Library Science, without being MA/M.Sc. for appointment as Librarians. Possession of Master's Degree in Arts/Commerce/Science with 55% marks has been recommended for those candidates who has done only Bachelor's Degree in Library Science. The very fact that Master of Library and Information Science is a professional job oriented course makes it essential that the essential criteria for admission to it ought to be the proficiency, in terms of marks obtained, in the Diploma/Degree Course in Library Science and not marks obtained in MA/M.Sc. or BA/B.Sc. because these must already would have been taken into consideration at the time of admission to Bachelor of Science Course as prescribed in the calendar and the prospectus.
8. I have perused the merit list for admission which is Annexure R/3 and the merit of the petitioners in both the cases and find that those who possessed Master's Degree in Arts/Commerce/Science and Diploma/ Degree in Library Science were placed in 'category (i)' and initially all the 12 seats for fresh candidates in the M.Lib.Science were filled from this list. Even in this list those who had obtained higher marks in Bachelor of Library Science were down graded in merit because they had obtained lesser marks in MA/M.Sc. There are conditions in 'category (ii)' of the merit list who had secured much higher marks in Bachelor of Library Science (Petitioner Ashwinder Kaur 65.62%) and Petitioner Ritu Chadda 63.12% than majority of the candidates who got admitted to Master of Library Science because they had possessed MA/M.Sc., although this later qualification is neither prescribed in the University calendar nor relevant to higher studies in Library Science.
9. The inescapable conclusion is that the overriding preferential provision given through the Notice of Admission to those possessing Master's Degree in Art/ Commerce/Science for admission to Master of Library and Information Science Course is in contravention of the provisions contained in the calendar which have been correctly incorporated in the prospectus, and hence cannot be sustained in law. Doing so has in fact distorted the merit of the eligible candidates and deprived those who had acquired higher proficiency, in terms of marks obtained in the relevant professional course of degree in Library Science.
10. In view of the above, 1 hold that the admissions made to the Master of Library and Information Science Course by giving overriding preference to candidates who had lower merit in Bachelor of Library Science Course but higher marks in M.A/M.Sc. which is neither prescribed nor essential qualification for Master of Library and Information Science Course, are illegal.
11. Although the petitioners have succeeded for the reasons stated above, I would like to examine the two main points raised therein, because leaving these issues undecided could lead to further litigation at the final stage of next admissions, if not sooner.
12. One point is that of excessive reservation, directly or indirectly. On the face of it, the reservation as mentioned in the prospectus (pages 3-4) add up to 42.5%, which, considering the various categories who have been made entitled to reservation, is not excessive. It has been argued that the 'weightage' of 5% in marks granted to dependent sons/daughters of serving/retired employees of the Punjab University and of fellows of the Punjab University, and that too over and above the other 'weightages' up to 15% marks, amounts to indirect reservation of seats for them, for which these can possibly do no justification, I have looked into this aspect. I consider that the weightages by way of institutional preference (students of Punjab University) certificates of N.C.C., N.S.S., participation in sports, Youth Welfare and Cultural activities, promotion of adult education and the like, are both justifiable and reasonable, so long as these are restricted to a reasonable limit. The maximum weightage on all these counts have been fixed by the University at 15% of the marks. This, to my mind is reasonable. I, however, find that there is weightage of 5% marks to sons/daughters of Fellows and employees (both serving and retired) of the University which is excluded from the operation of the restriction of 15%. I consider that such weightage to students for being children of employees/fellows of the University, is discriminatory in nature and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. I, therefore, strike down Clause (b) under the heading 'B (i) Weightage' as contained in Prospectus for 1988-89 of the Department of Library and Information Science of the Punjab University.
13. As regards the question of normalisation, the reason for doing so has been stated to be that different Universities/ Institutions have varying maximum marks for same level of examinations. For example the maximum marks for B.A. examination are 650 in the Punjab University but the same might be 800 in some other University. Also, in the same University, there can be different max. marks for a particular category of the qualifying examination e.g. 650 for B. A., 600 for B.Sc. and 650 for B.Sc. (Home Science). In order to avoid discrimination, it would be necessary to have a procedure for normalisation of marks with reference to a specified norm. In the instant case, the Punjab University has done normalisation even for those examinations which are not the qualifying examinations, which, besides being irrelevant, can have the effect of distorting real merit. In the circumstances, I direct that normalisation of marks shall in future be done only in respect of the qualifying examination.
14. In the earlier part of the order, I have held that the admissions made to the Master of Library and Information Science Course are illegal. Since, however, the first semester of the current sessions of Master of Library and Information Science Course is almost complete, I would allow the candidates already admitted on this faladous and illegal criterion, to continue in this course, purely on compassionate grounds to save them from hardship. At the same time, I would not at all like the petitioners, namely, Ashwinder Kaur and Ritu Chadha, who have superior merit in Bachelor of Library Science as compared Co some of those who have already been admitted to suffer and lose one year of studies. I, therefore, allow both the petitions and direct that both the petitioners shall be admitted to the Current Session of Master of Library and Information Science Course by the University Authorities, including the Vice-Chancellor, by adding two seats to the course. I further direct that the petitioners shall not be debarred from taking the examination for the first semester on the ground that they failed to attend the requisite number of lectures. I further hold that the petitioners are entitled to the costs of this litigation which I determine at Rs. 1000/- each.