SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., R.S. PATHAK AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.
Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Gulati and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 3779, 3653-66, 3524-26 & 3527-28 and 3054 of 1982 and Civil Appeal No. 4065 of 1983 (from Spl. Leave Petn. (Civil) No. 9005 of 1982), D/- 20-4-1983.
AND
Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, Appellant
Versus
Dharminder Kumar Singhal and others, Respondents.
AND
Rohit Narang, etc., Appellants
Versus
Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, Respondents.
AND
Ricky Malhotra and others, Appellants
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and others, Respondents.
AND
Sanjay Vasandani and others, Petitioners
Versus
Chandigarh Administration, Respondent.
Education and University - Spot test – Admission - Admission of seven wards of the employees of Punjab Engineering College has been quashed by High Court on the ground that such admissions are contrary to the relevant rules of admission, it will not be fair to cancel their admission at this stage. They have also, like eight "spot test" students, completed either one or two semesters of the academic year 1982-83. They will be allowed to continue their further studies in the College uninterrupted - Whether sixteen writ petitioners should be admitted to those sixteen seats or whether admission to those seats should be made strictly in accordance with merit – Held, Court unable to accept submission made by petitioners that they should be preferred for admission irrespective of preferred for admission irrespective of merit. The circumstance that they filed writ petitions in High Court but others similarly aggrieved did not, will not justify the granting of admission to them by ignoring those others who were higher up in the merit list – Court satisfied that admission of seven wards of employees of the College and of Ashok Kumar Kaushik is contrary to the rules and regulations, we have not examined correctness of the finding of High Court in regard to the alleged illegality of the admission of the eight, students who were admitted by the test of "spot selection - Appeals disposed of
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, CJI. :- Eight candidates were admitted to the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh for the academic year 1982-83, by what is described as the "spot test". Their admission has been struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground, that it is contrary to the rules and regulations governing admissions to the institution. We are of the opinion that since these students have already completed one or two semesters, it will be unjust to cancel their admission at this stage and to remove their names from the rolls of the College. We therefore direct that they will be allowed to continue their further studies in the College uninterrupted.
2. By the same standard, even though the admission of seven wards of the employees of the Punjab Engineering College has been quashed by the High Court on the ground that such admissions are contrary to the relevant rules of admission, it will not be fair to cancel their admission at this stage. They have also, like the eight "spot test" students, completed either one or two semesters of the academic year 1982-83. They will be allowed to continue their further studies in the College uninterrupted.
3. The admission granted to the candidate Ashok Kumar Kaushik has also been struck down by the High Court, but he too will be allowed to continue his further studies in the College. We cannot apply to him a different standard than the one which we have applied to the fifteen candidates referred to above, who are being allowed to continue their studies as if their admission to the College suffered from no defect or illegality.
4. Cases like these in which admissions granted to students in educational institutions are quashed raise a sensitive human issue. It is unquestionably true that the authorities who are charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions must act fairly and objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous considerations and the authorities violate the norms set down by the rules and regulations, a sense of resentment and frustration is bound to be generated in the minds of those unfortunate young students who are wrongly or purposefully left out. Indiscipline in educational institutions is not wholly unconnected with a lack of sense of moral values on the part of the administrators and teachers alike. But, the problem which the courts are faced with in these cases is, that it is not until a period of six months or a year elapses after the admissions are made that the intervention of the court comes into play. Writ petitions involving a challenge to such admissions are generally taken up by the High Court as promptly as possible but even then, students who are wrongly admitted finish one or two semesters of the course by the time the decision of the High Court is pronounced. A further appeal to this Court consumes still more time, which creates further difficulties in adjusting equities between students who are wrongly admitted and those who are unjustly excluded. Inevitably, the Court has to rest content with and academic pronouncement of the true legal position. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get into an educational institution by means, fair or foul: Once you are in, no one will put you out. Laws delays work their wonders in such diverse fashions.
5. We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities of educational institutions of various States to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the Courts will leave the admissions intact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Some day, not distant, if admissions are quashed for the reason that they were made wrongly, it will have to be
relied on : State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.