Admission in the sports quota required candidates to score minimum qualifying marks, emphasizing the importance of academic excellence alongside sports achievements.

S.S.Nijjar, J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book.

2. Separate written statements have been filed by the respondents. The petitioners claim to be Sports Persons having excelled in different sports. They are seeking admission in the Bachelor of Engineering Course against the seats reserved for the sports category. The petitioners applied for All India Engineering Entrance Examination (hereinafter referred to as "AIEE"), conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education hereinafter referred to as "the C.B.S.E.). The test was held on 21.5.2004. Respondents No. 1 and 2 i.e. Punjab University and Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Punjab University respectively have made admissions to all the seats in the department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, on the basis of A.I.E.E.E.-04 test for the academic Session 2004-2005. Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh has also made the admissions on the basis of the aforesaid test. C.B.S.E. had published the Prospectus known as "INFORMATION BULLETIN & APPLICATION FORM" (Annexure P-5). Last date for receipt of application form was 15.1.2004. Date of examination was fixed on May 9.10.2004. Respondent No.l also published its own Prospectus which is attached to the writ petition as Annexure P-6. In this prospectus, last date for receipt of complete application form was 28.6.2004. The petitioners submitted the applications within the stipulated period. The result of AIEEE, 2004 was declared in the last week of June, 2004. The marks State and All India Bank of the petitioners are as under:-

MN_896.htm

3. The Vice-Chancellor of respondent No.l constituted a Committee for screening the applications. Only the applicants whose applications were in conformity with the requirements and specifications mentioned in the Prospectus were to be called for Interview/trial, which were scheduled to be held on 9.7.2004. It was specifically provided that the candidates who failed to present themselves for actual trial on 9.7.2004 at 9.00 a.m. will not be eligible for the benefit of reservation under the Sports Category. The trials were duly held on 9.7.2004. A list (Annexure P-7) was prepared showing the eligible candidates as per merit as also the ineligible candidates. 22 seats are reserved for the sports persons in all the courses in respondent No. 2-department, including the course of Bachelor of Pharmacy. In this list, Annexure P-7, the petitioners were ranked as Num- bers 3, 14, 18 and 35. The same list was displayed on the Notice Board of the depart- ment on the day of the counselling i.e. 22.7.2004. When the petitioners reached the de- partment at 9 a.m. for counselling, they saw that the list (Annexure P-7) was being re- moved from the notice board. They were informed that the counselling was postponed for two hours as the merit was being re-determined. The petitioners immediately raised a hue and cry. This was for the reasons that the petitioners were told that now the University had fixed a criteria of minimum of 15% marks to be secured in AIEEE-2004 as qualifying score. The candidate who did not score the minimum qualifying marks were being excluded from the list. Thus, the names of the petitioners were removed from the list. Against the action of the respondents, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. They have also challenged the admission granted to respondents No. 3 to 9 in the department of Chemical Engineering and Technology of the respondent No. 1-University.

4. Mr. P.S.Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the original Prospectus of the University did not contain the criteria of obtaining minimum qualifying marks for being selected for admission. This condition has been introduced subsequent to the publication of the Prospectus (Annexure P-6), and therefore, cannot be acted upon. In support of the su