Ishaan Nijjar And Anr vs Pec University Of Technology Pec And Ors on 5 August, 2016
Once the prospectus itself provided that the fresh guidelines
would be notified, the addition as such which was made a year earlier by the
competent authority being the Secretary of the Technical Education but was
not incorporated in the information brochure/prospectus which was
published in May, 2016 cannot take away the right of the respondents no. 3
and 4 for consideration in view of the decision of the Chandigarh
7 of 10
::: Downloaded on - 10-09-2016 22:48:18 :::
CWP No. 14198 of 2016 8
Administration. The reliance of counsel for the petitioners on the judgment
of Krishma Bansal vs. State of Punjab and others, 2015 (4) SCT 547 in
such circumstances is without any basis. In the said case, the issue was that
the government, by public notice, revised the admission criteria by way of
public notice for the vacant NRI seats for MBBS/BDS courses. On account
of NRI students failing to qualify by not obtaining 50% marks in PMET,
2015, the State opted to fill the vacant seats on the basis of the 10+2
examination against the terms of Clause 23(vi) of the prospectus. In such
circumstances, it was held that the government is bound by its prospectus
and the instructions and the public notice could not be issued in violation of
the terms of the prospectus at the last moment making ineligible candidates
eligible.