Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 21 November, 2011
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No. 13511 of 2011 -1-
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh
CWP No. 13511 of 2011(O&M)
Date of decision: 21.11.2011
Surjeet Singh
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina
****
Present : Ms. Gagan Geet Kaur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, D. A.G., Punjab.
Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate
for respondent No. 29.
Mr. Sukhdeep Singh Bhinder, Advocate
for respondent No. 65.
Mr. H.S. Dhandi, Advocate
for respondent No. 75.
Mr. Deepak Goyal, Advocate for
Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate
for respondent No. 98.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate
for respondents No. 84 to 88.
****
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 present writ petition has been filed by way of Public Interest Litigation.
CWP No. 13511 of 2011 -2-
2. Notice of the petition was issued on 10.8.2010 after the petitioner had sought time on 3.8.2010 to implead 102 private unaided Colleges affiliated to the Punjab Technical University as parties likely to be affected.
3. The challenge raised in the petition is to the counselling process for admissions to the private unaided colleges for filling up the Management quota / vacant seats through an admission test conducted by the respondent-PTU for MBA, B. Tech. and B. Pharmacy Courses for the session 2010-11. The University has drawn a list of 'Selected Affiliated Colleges / Institutes' where alone it supervises the counselling process for admissions. The 102 private Colleges are not on that list. The prayer is that they should be brought into the list for filling up Management quota seats or seats lying vacant. It is further stated that candidates from Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh alone are considered for selection to affiliated colleges/ institutes in Punjab. The petitioner has asserted that he is not personally interested in the result of the petition but has filed it to serve public good. In substance the complaint is that PTU has selected of 275 colleges and only 43 colleges would participate in the common admission counselling conducted by the University. Similarly, 28 Engineering Colleges have been selected out of 88; 7 Management Colleges out of 51 and 7 out of 34 Pharmacy Colleges. The Private respondent-Colleges are, thus, free to conclude the process of admission to Management quota seats on their own. It is then contended that such restriction is unreasonable as it restricts options and opportunities for admissions through the 'Common Counseling Process'.
4. In response to the petition a short affidavit has been filed by the Additional Secretary, Department of TEIT, Punjab, Chandigarh dated 14.2.2011. It has been stated that the Government of Punjab in the department concerned had issued letter dated 4.2.12010 appointing PTU CWP No. 13511 of 2011 -3- as the authority competent to conduct CET, 2010 and to conduct the online counselling for admissions to various degree level courses i.e. B. Tech / B. Pharma / MBA for the Session 2010-11. Still further vide earlier letter dated 25.4.2008 the State Government had issued guidelines for management quota in private unaided Technical and Management Institutions vis-à-vis State Govt quota seats in the ratio of 331/3rd% and 662/3rd % respectively. Beyond fixing ratio and appointing the authority to conduct the common entrance test the State has no role to play.
5. We have read the notifications Annexures R-I to R-III placed on record by the State Government in the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. We have not been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner any violation of any of the provisions contained in the notifications and the scheme of admissions process to the private unaided colleges. We are therefore, at a loss to fathom any legal principle on the basis of which the writ Court can issue a direction either to the State Government or to the PTU to compel them to hold counseling for the respondent-private unaided colleges that receive no financial help from the State. Private Colleges are at liberty to fill their management quota seats through the counselling process of the University or on their own by exercising option. But there is nothing shown to us by way of a rule or statutory provision on the basis of which a mandamus can be issued by the writ court to compel private unaided colleges to draw students exclusively from the counselling process of PTU. The mere apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the hearing that admissions to management quota seats in the absence of control of the University might lead to capitation fee is no ground for us to interfere in the functioning of the private unaided colleges. There is no statutory duty cast upon such colleges to go by counselling process of PTU or they must surrender to CWP No. 13511 of 2011 -4- such process on their own. No sufficient ground is made out to ignite the jurisdiction of this Court.
6. Mr. Amrit Paul, learned counsel for the University has pointed out that the admission process for the academic session 2010-11, the subject matter of this petition, is over and the prayer is infructuous. The issue raised is rendered academic. We find ourselves in agreement with the submission as at this stage any interference would result in chaos. We are not inclined to interfere. No student is before us complaining of infraction of any fundamental or legal right to admission or its wrongful denial. We would, therefore, leave the issue open to be tested at the hands of an aggrieved party in future, if the need arises. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
JUDGE JUDGE
November 21, 2011
'sp'