Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swatanter Kumar Singal, Executive ... vs State Of Punjab on 10 October, 2000
Author: R.C. Kathuria
Bench: R.C. Kathuria
JUDGMENT R.C. Kathuria, J.
1. Swatanter Kurnar Singal (Peti-tioner No. 1) and his daughter Radhima Singla, through him (petitioner No. 2) have sought a direction in this writ petition to the respondents to consider petitioner No. 2 for admission to the Bachelor of Engineering Course under 85 per cent quota reserved for the residents of Punjab as per merit Secured by her in Common Entrance Test, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as CET-2000).
2. For holding CET-2000 for admissions to Degree Level Engineering and Architecture Courses being run in the Institutions and Universities located in the Slate of Punjab, Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') issued Admission Brochure. The criteria for admission to the said Courses was stated in Para (C) (pages 6 and 7 of the Brochure), when read as under :-
"(C) Eligibility for Admission to Degree Level Engg./Architecture Courses:
(i) 85% seats would be reserved for the candidates from within the State and 15% will be open to all candidates on All India basis. The eligibility criteria for 85% seats will be that the candidate must be a resident of Punjab State in terms of Punjab Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PP II Branch) letter No. 1/3/95- 3PPI1/9619 dated 6th June, 1996 and letter No. 1/3/95-3PPII/81 dated 1st January, 1999, and have passed 10+1 and I0+2examinationsas a regular candidate from a recognized institution situated in Punjab. The candidate would be required to submit a certificate to this effect from the Principal/Head of Institution last attended in the prescribed p reforma.
(ii)The above clause of having passed 10+1 and 10+2 examinations as a regular candidate from arecog-nized institution situated in Punjab shall not be applicable to the following categories of candidates :
(a) Candidates seeking admission under NRI quota;
(b) Children, wards and dependents (whose parents are not alive) of those regular Punjab Government employees/Members of All India Services borne on Punjab cadre/Boards and Corporations/Statutory bodies established by or under an Act of the State of Punjab, posted outside the State of Punjab. (The officer/official should have been holding the post outside Punjab on or before 1 st January of the year of entrance examination);
(c) Children, wards and dependents (whose parents are not alive) of those regular Central Government employees not covered under other categories of this Para-C(ii) with Punjab domicile, who have served for atleast two years in Punjab out of 3 years preceding the year of entrance examination;
(d) Children, wards and dependents (whose parents are not alive) of those Punjab Government pensioners settled outside Punjab before 1 st January of the year of entrance examination;
(e) Children, wards and dependents (whose parents are not alive) of military/para-military forces personnel belonging to the State of Punjab as per record at the time of their entry into service. (A certificate on prescribed proforma by the Com-manding Officers of the Unit has to be furnished); and
(f) Children, wards and dependents (whose parents are not alive) 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 who retired on or after I st January of the year preceding two years of the year of entrance examination."
Radhima Singal (petitioner No. 2) had passed her 10+1 and 10+2 examinations from a School situated in Chandigarh. She appeared in CET-2000 under the quota of 85% seats reserved for candidates from within the State of Punjab. Her position in merit was at No. 5038 in the said examination. She appeared for counselling before the Board on 6.8.2000, but she was not considered under the said quota of 85% seats on the ground that she had not passed her 10+1 and 10+2 examinations from the State of Punjab. She has claimed that she has a right to be considered under the said quota of 85% seats because her father, who is presently posted as an Executive Engineer at Ferozepur, during the course of his employment had remained posted at different intervals at Chandigarh from 15.10.1977 to 11.5.1983, 16.3.1980 to 11.3.1994 and 10.11.1997 to 13.1.1998 and for that reason her case is covered under para (C)(ii)(b) of the Admission Brochure. Her representation dated 8.8.2000 (Annexure P-2) made to the Vice Chancellor of the University in this regard did not find favour. Compelled by these circumstances, she has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. On notice of motion, appearance has been put in on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, but no written reply has been filed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
5. It has not been disputed by the learned counsel representing the petitioners that as petitioner No. 2 has passed 10+1 and 10+2 examinations from Chandigarh, therefore, she is not entitled to claim admission under the quota of 85% seats in terms of Para (C)(i) of the Admission Brochure. At the same time, it has been urged by him that the rigours of the said clause have been exempted in view of the provisions contained in Para (C)(ii)(b) ibid wherein it has been specifically provided that the above clause of having passed 10 +1 and 10+2 examinations as a regular candidate from a recognized institution situated in Punjab will not be applicable to a candidate who is a child of a regular Punjab Government employee holding the post outside Punjab on or before 1st January of the year of entrance examination. It has further been contended by him that though father of the petitioner No. 2 is presently posted as an Executive Engineer at Ferozepur, but he had served in Chandigarh from 15.10.1977 to 11.5.1983, 16.3.1989 to 11.3.1994 and 10.11.1997 to 13.1.1998 and, therefore, it has to be considered that father of petitioner No'. 2 was holding the post outside Punjab before 1st January of the year of entrance examination which was held on 28.5.2000.
6. The submission made has been strenuously opposed by the counsel representing respondent Nos. 2 and 3 primarily on the ground that the posting of the father of petitioner No. 2 at Chandigarh ending on 13.1.1998 would not entitle her to seek admission in terms of Para (C)(ii)(b) ibid because his last posting at Chandigarh had lated upto 13.1.1998.
7. There is no factual dispute between the parties. Admittedly, father of petitioner No. 2 was posted at Ferozepur when she had appeared in CET-2000 on 28.5.2000 and for mat reason she was not admitted to the said Course by the University. The University is fully justified in not considering the posting of the father of petitioner No. 2 at Chandigarh, which lasted upto 13.1.1998, in terms of Para (C)(ii)(b) ibid, the reason being the words 'on or before ls( January of the year of entrance examination' used in this Para would not embrace the period of posling of the father of petitioner No. 2 at Chandigarh. While considering these provisions of eligibility clause, their purport and purpose cannot be ignored. The object of these provisions appears to be to extend the benefit of admission to the children of regular Punjab Government employees who were posted at Chandigarh but had to suffer transfers soon before the 1 st January of the year of entrance examination. The intention of the Universily is manifested from the other clauses contained in para (C)(ii)(c) and (f) ibid because wherever needed the period preceding the year of entrance examination has been specifically provided therein. Therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the University in declining admission to the petitioner under para (C)(ii)(b) of the Admission Brochure.
For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same. No costs.
8. Petition dismissed.