Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rimaljit Kaur & Another vs State Of Punjab & Others on 15 March, 2012
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 371 of 2011 -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 371 of 2011
Date of Decision: 15.03.2012
Rimaljit Kaur & another
......... Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab & others
............ Respondents
*****
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. R.S. Chauhan, DAG, Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr. S.S. Bhinder, Advocate
for respondents No. 2 & 3.
Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate
for respondents No. 5 to 10.
****
1. To be referred to the reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
1. The Government of Punjab in the Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training (Technical Education Branch-II) notified a 'fee waiver scheme' by a notification dated 24.6.2010. This scheme covers all Government, Government Promoted, Private Aided and Private unaided institutions with permission to fill 10% of total seats filled during the preceding academic year. It is available only to residents of Punjab. The admission is carried out as per the AICTE policy / guidelines to be operated by the Punjab Technical University , Jalandhar (for short 'PTU') and the Punjab State Board of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Chandigarh, through process of counselling. As per condition No. 9 of the scheme it makes eligible such children CWP No. 371 of 2011 -2- whose parents have annual income of less than Rs. 2.5 lacs from all sources. The text of the notification is placed at P-2. In order to seek admission to B.Tech. Degree course in the branch of Information Technology, the petitioner appeared at the time of counselling conducted by the PTU. She staked her claim as a member of the economically weaker section under the fee waiver scheme. She produced before the counselling Committee an income affidavit attested by the Notary Public. The counselling was held from 19.7.2010 onwards. The PTU had issued advertisement (P-3) in respect of the fee waiver scheme. Condition No. 2
(ii) of the PTU advertisement laid down that for proof of income either an income certificate from the Head of Department/Employer in case of serving parents or Income Tax Return in case of businessmen was required and an affidavit stating total family income attested by Executive Magistrate was also required as a condition precedent to be treated as a candidate under the fee waiver scheme. A note was appended in this advertisement that candidates already admitted through online counselling cannot change their institute, but they can change their branch/trade within the same institute. At the time of counselling the verifying officer found the petitioner eligible for tuition fee waiver scheme in the category of economically weaker section subject to availability of seats and norms. This slip was issued when the petitioner was counselled on 23.9.2010 and she was asked to report to the 5th respondent-Sri Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana. On verification of credentials of the petitioner for admission under the scheme it was found that the income certificate produced at the time of counselling was attested by a Notary Public and not by the Magistrate and, therefore, the petitioner's case could not be considered under the scheme and, thus, her admission would remain in the general category in the same college. There is a substantial difference in the tuition fee required to be paid for each semester of the B.Tech. Course in open general category and under tuition waiver scheme an open general category candidate is required to pay Rs. 42930/- per semester while a tuition waiver student is required to pay Rs. CWP No. 371 of 2011 -3- 24750/- per semester. The petitioner got her desired branch in Information Technology but without tuition waiver. It is also not disputed that the petitioner ultimately armed herself with an income certificate attested by the Executive Magistrate but that was after counselling on 28.9.2010 under which she secured admission on 29.9.2010. The affidavit was produced during ongoing counselling and the petitioner with her CET Rank 6233 was offered B.Tech. in Mechanical Engineering. The petitioner was not interested in pursuing Mechanical Engineering and made a note in her writing on a sheet before the seat allotment committee that she was "not interested". This document is placed as Annexure R/5/3 in the reply of the respondent Aided College. The respondent-college has placed on record the advertisement of the PTU under Fee Waiver Scheme as Annexures R/5/1 and R/5/2 were the condition of affidavit duly attested by Executive Magistrate is writ large. These advertisements were also available on the internet.
2. Mr. Namit Kumar learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 to 10 has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Rashpal Kaur v. State of Punjab & Others 2010(1) S.C.T. 406 to contend that where law prescribes time and date to submit required documents either through advertisement or public notice, candidature of candidate cannot be considered if the documents are submitted later than the date fixed. The petitioner was well aware of the advertisement. It is not her case that she did not have knowledge of the public notice and the fee waiver scheme. The process of counselling is such an exercise where hundreds of students are elbowing in for a berth in an institution. Those who are not equipped with certificates proving eligibility under a particular category are ousted making room for the next candidate who may be lower in merit. Therefore, the petitioner has no one to blame except herself or her parents for being not well equipped for the category applied for during counselling.
3. Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel further submits that it is not a case that her fresh income certificate was not considered on production during the CWP No. 371 of 2011 -4- continued counselling. However, it was produced at a time when she could be offered only B. Tech. in Mechanical Engineering at her merit position in CET. But that offer she did not avail. She could not have insisted that she should be admitted in the Information Technology Branch of Engineering in the same college. The case of the Pallavi-respondent No.9, who had ranked 10798 lower than the petitioner admitted under the EWS scheme at GGS CMT Kharar is not as projected by the petitioner. The case of Pallavi according to Mr. Namit Kumar is not a case of change of college or stream. Merely because Pallavi was lower in rank would not help the petitioner, since this Court is of the opinion that on the relevant date the petitioner did not have proof of being economically weaker in terms of the fee waiver scheme.
4. Mr. Dhindsa, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE, 2005(9) SCC 779 to contend that production of documentary proof on the cut off date is relaxable being a procedural provision which in a given case can be relaxed. Every infraction of rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature. So long as the counselling process has not ended relief could not be denied and direction may be given for admission in the next academic year. The facts in this case were that a candidate for a medical course claimed seat based on reservation for children/widows of personnel of armed/paramilitary forces of Orissa, killed/disabled in action during war or peace time operation. The appellant (candidate) submitted a certificate in proof of reservation certifying that her father was suffering from permanent disability. The certificate was issued by the Zilla Sainik Board. In this certificate a mistake had crept in, namely, in Column No. 3 pertaining to "Disabled/killed in war/hostilities", the words "not eligible" were written. This mistake was rectified in the second certificate issued by the Zilla Sainik Board where in column No. 3 the words "Permanently disabled" were written. Therefore, the factual position before the Court was that the appellant's CWP No. 371 of 2011 -5- father was discharged from army on account of permanent disability was a fact not disputed by the respondents nor was the second certificate disputed. The only ground of rejection of the appellants candidature in that case was that at the time of counselling she failed to produce certificate to show that she belongs to a reserved category.
5. In the light of above facts, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held thus:-
"The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark-sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply and rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature."
6. The position in the present case is somewhat different. The petitioner did not follow the rules at the time of first counselling for which she was to blame and when she was armed with the certificate she was duly considered and offered the stream available at the stage of subsequent counselling which she refused to accept. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable.
7. The petitioners' reliance on the Punjab Government notification dated 10.3.2010 (P-6/T) authorizing self declaration form in place of affidavits in any Punjab Government office or any society/ Departments which falls under Punjab Government is misplaced. That notification has no bearing on the admissions CWP No. 371 of 2011 -6- process to B. Tech. Courses. It deserves notice that the fee waiver scheme of Punjab Government was promulgated after P-6 and would remain the special law with regard to admissions in fee waiver scheme category.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.
15.03.2012 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) 'sp' JUDGE