Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anurag Sharma (Minor) Through His ... vs Regional Engineering College, ... on 7 December, 1995
Equivalent citations: AIR1996P&H154, (1996)112PLR628
ORDER
The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for admission to the B. Tech. (Textile Technology) Course as candidates below him including respondent No. 3 have already been admitted to the said course. A few facts may be noticed.
2. A combined entrance test for admission to the various Engineering Colleges in the State of Haryana was held on June 4, 1995. The petitioner who claims to be a member of the Backward Classes appeared in that test. He qualified it. He was placed at No. 3602 in the order of merit.
3. The candidates who had qualified the entrance test were required to submit fresh application for admission to the Engineering Course. These applications had to reach the Chairman of the Admission Committee on or before September 8,1995. The petitioner sent his application form by speed post from the post office at Bhiwani in the State of Haryana on September 2,1995. In the normal course of events, it should have reached the address on or before the last date fixed for the receipt of applications. The Chairman had to send letters of interview to the various applicants. However, a notice was published in the Times of India giving the schedule for admission. The candidates from No. 3201 to 4000 had to be interviewed on September 25, 1995. Various other categories of candidates were to be interviewed thereafter. It was further stipulated that the applicants who did not receive the interview letters may present themselves along with original documents and fee in accordance with the prescribed schedule of dates. Accordingly, the petitioner reported for interview on September 25,1995. He was informed that the application form having not been received by the last date viz, September 8, 1995, his candidature shall not be considered. The representation etc. submitted by the petitioner having borne no fruitful results, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition on October 5, 1995.
4. The case came up for hearing before the Bench on October 9, 1995. The Bench directed the issue of notice of motion for November 6,1995. It was further directed that "one seat in the B.E. degree course be kept vacant if admissions are not yet finalised."
5. The respondents were served with the notice, On behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and2 viz. the Regional Engineering College, Kuru-kshetra and the Chairman of the Admission Committee, a written statement was filed. In this, it was inter alia mentioned that "the petition is liable to be dismissed as the admissions to the Backward Class category had been completed on September 27, 1995. However, the directions of this Court dated October 9, 1995 were received in the college on 14-10-1995, by then all the seats have been filled up and no seat in this category is lying vacant". On merits, it was not denied that persons who were below the petitioner in order of merit had been admitted. However, it was only stated that the application having not been received by the last date, the petitioner had no right to be considered for admission. Reliance was also placed on a stipulation in the prospectus wherein it was provided that the "applications received late due to post/courier delays or otherwise will not be considered". The specific averment in the writ petition that the petitioner had despatched the application form by speed post on September 2,1995 and the copy of the postal receipt was at Annexure P-l, was controverted "for want of knowledge".
6. The petitioner had also impleaded one Mr. Shailendra Yadav who was at serial No. 3721 in Order of merit as respondent No. 3. The allegation made in the writ petition was that the said respondent had been admitted against a seat reserved for members of Backward Classes by ignoring the petitioner's claim. A separate written statement has been filed by Mr. Yadav. The averments are broadly on the same lines as those in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It has, however, been pointed out that the respondent had submitted his application form personally on September 1, 1995. It has also been pointed out that he had been duly admitted on September 25, 1995 and that he had paid his fees on the same day. This respondent has also stated that candidates who were placed much below him at serial Nos. 3825, 3850, 3975, 4097 and even 7000 have been admitted to the course. In view of this position, it is claimed that the petitioner has no cause of action against the said respondent and the writ petition should be. dismissed with costs.
7. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder reiterating the claim made in the writ petition.
8. Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application form having been despatched on September 2, 1995, it should have been delivered to the respondents before the last date. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for any default on the part of the postal authorities. He further submits that the unilateral condition imposed by the respondents to the effect that they will not be responsible for the delays by the postal authorities cannot give them a handle to act unfairly or to exclude the meritorious candidates on the technical plea that the admission form was received late especially when the petitioner had reported for interview on September 25, 1995.
9. Mr. Virk, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has very candidly admitted that the last candidate was admitted to the Engineering course on November 14, 1995. He has, however, submitted that the admissions to technical courses have to be made in accordance with the prescribed time schedule and candidates whose applications did not reach the concerned quarters by the last date are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on the original documents, the learned counsel has pointed out that the application form had reached the Kurukshetra post office on September II, 1995. It was delivered to the college on the same day. Since it was received after the last date, the authorities had no alternative but to reject the petitioner's candidature. The stand taken on behalf of the college has been reiterated by Mr. Yadav appearing for respondent No. 3.
10. The two questions that arise for consideration are:--
(1) Was the petitioner remiss in sending the application form? (2) Is the action of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in refusing to consider his claim just and fair?
11. Regarding (1) : Admittedly, Kurukshetra is at a distance of less than 150 kilometres from Bhiwani. A letter posted at Bhiwani should reach Kurukshetra in the ordinary course in less than 24 hours. The petitioner had taken the precaution to send the letter by speed post. He was entitled to expect that it would be delivered in time. Somehow, for reasons which are not clear on the record, the postal department took 9 days and delivered the letter on September II, 1995. The petitioner was never informed that his application form had not been received by the due date. According to the press note issued by the respondents, the candidates who did not receive an interview card, were entitled to appear on the date fixed for the interview. Consequently, the petitioner appeared before the respondents on September 25,1995. It was only on that date, that he was made aware of the fact that the application form had been received late. In the entire process, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had not submitted his application form at the opportune time or that he was responsible for delay at any stage.
12. Neither in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents nor at the time of hearing of the case it has been shown that the petitioner was remiss in any manner. In the normal course of events he was entitled to expect and imagine that the form sent by him by speed post should reach the respondents by September 4,1995. In any case, it could not be imagined that it would not be delivered till September 8, 1995.
13. Taking the totality of circumstances into consideration, it has to be held that the petitioner was not remiss in any manner. Consequently, the first question is answered in the negative and it is held that the petitioner was not to be blamed for any delay in so far as the submission of the application form was concerned.
14. Regaring (2): In view of the original record in possession of the respondents, it is clear that the application form had been despatched by the petitioner by speed post from Bhiwani on September 2, 1995. It is also established that it had been received by the respondents on September II, 1995. It is further clear that the process of interview had to commence on September 18, 1995. It has also been conceded that the last candidate was admitted to the Engineering Course on November 14, 1995. It is further established on the record that the candidates who were far below the petitioner in order of merit have been admitted to the course. Prinia facie, it is clear that the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in excluding the petitioner from admission on the ground that his application form had reached later was not just and fair.
15. It is true that in the prospectus it had been provided that applications which are received late due to postal delays shall not be considered. This was, however, a unilateral decision. The candidates were totally helpless in the matter. By merely imposing this condition the respondents cannot avoid their responsibility to act fairly, A candidate who had sent his application form well in advance should not have been excluded from admission only on the ground that it was received a few days after the stipulated date.
16. There is another aspect of the matter. The motion bench by its order of October 9, 1995 had directed the respondents to keep one seat vacant. The respondents did not carry out this direction. They filed a written statement averring that the order was received in the college on October 14,1995 by which time "all the seats" had been "filled up" and that "no seat in this category is lying vacant". Factually, the statement was not accurate. All the seats had not been filled up. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents was not correct. Secondly, the direction of the Bench was for reservation of one seat. It was not directed that a seat reserved for the category of Backward Classes alone has to be reserved. The respondents made a false representation that all the seats had been filled up. It has not been explained as to why the respondents did out the directions given by this
17. Added to all this is the fact that a candidate who is almost 4000 places below the petitioner in order of merit has been admitted. The petitioner certainly had a better right to be considered for admission than the persons below him in the merit list. He was arbitrarily, excluded. Candidates below him in order of merit were admitted. This for obvious reasons I resulted in denial of opportunity to him. The action was apparently arbitrary and unfair.
18. In view of the above, the second question is answered in the affirmative and it is held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had acted arbitrarily in excluding the petitioner from admission.
19. Mr. Virk on behalf of the respondents submitted that admissions to various courses have to be finalised within the prescribed time. If applications are entertained after the last date fixed for the purpose, the institution shall not be able to conform to the time schedule. He is undoubtedly right in his submission. However, the question whether a student who had qualified the entrance test is liable to be excluded from consideration for admission only because the application form is received late has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Saurabh Aggarwal v. Kurukshetra University, 1995(1) RSJ 801. In almost a similar situation, the Bench had taken the view that the candidate could not be excluded from consideration. Similar is the position in the present case.
20. No other point was urged.
21. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to consider the petitioner's claim for admission to one of the Engineering Colleges in accordance with law. If a seat is available, the petitioner shall be adjusted against that vacancy and in case it becomes necessary, the respondents shall be entitled to exclude the last candidate from admission. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. The original papers produced by Mr. Virk have been returned to him.
22. Petition allowed.