PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.P.Kurdukar, G.C.Garg and V.K.Bali JJ.
Sachin Gaur
Versus
Punjab University, Patiala
Civil Writ Petition No. 9979 of 1995,
Decided On : OCTOBER 12, 1995
ADMISSION - DIRECT ENTRY - CUT OFF DATE - ARBITRARINESS - CHANGE OF CUT OFF DATE - BRIDGE COURSE - VERTICAL ENTRY - MERIT - PROSPECTUS - INTERPRETATION - ADMISSION CRITERIA - ELIGIBILITY - QUALIFYING EXAMINATION - RESULT DECLARATION - DELAY - ACCOMMODATION OF STUDENTS - SUGGESTION TO AUTHORITIES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who secured high merit in the Entrance Test for admission to a degree course in Engineering at Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, were denied admission solely because the result of their qualifying examination had not been declared by the date specified in the Prospectus-cum-Information Brochure. The petitioners challenged the denial of admission, arguing that the cut-off date was arbitrary and violated the principle of merit-based selection.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the cut-off date for admission was not arbitrary and was necessary to ensure the timely commencement of classes. The Court also held that the petitioners could not be accommodated in the degree course without disrupting the academic schedule of the other students.
Issues: 1. Whether the cut-off date for admission was arbitrary and violated the principle of merit-based selection? 2. Whether the petitioners could be accommodated in the degree course without disrupting the academic schedule of the other students?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The cut-off date for admission was not arbitrary as it was necessary to ensure the timely commencement of classes. 2. The petitioners could not be accommodated in the degree course without disrupting the academic schedule of the other students.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitions.
V.K.BALI, J.
1. Sachin Gaur through present writ petition (bearing C.W.P. No. 9979 of 1995) filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his candidature and admit him in Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal in degree course in Engineering in on the basis of his high merit, i.e. 8th Position in the Entrance Test that was conducted for admission to the course in question. The claim of other petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9926, 9943, 10038, 10416, 10928, 11663 and 12061 of 1995 is absolutely identical. Obviously, common questions of law and fact are involved in all these petitions and, therefore, we propose to deal with and decide all the writ petitions by a common judgment. The facts have, however, been extracted from Civil Writ Petition 9979 of 1995 (Sachin Gaur V/s. Punjabi University).
2. Petitioner, it appears, has brilliant academic record. He did his 10+2 examination from Digamber Jain Inter College, Baraut after which he joined Kanhiya Lal Bahudandi Institute, Rurkee for doing his diploma in Electronic Engineering. The said institute is affiliated to the U.P. Board of Technical Education at Lucknow. The petitioner secured 711 marks out of 1000 i.e. 71.1% in the first year and in the second year he secured 785 marks out of l100 which is about 72%. He had taken the final examination in diploma in May, 1995 and was expecting his result in time. Desirous of seeking admission in degree in Engineering, he applied to Sant Longowal Institute of Engineering and Technology, Longowal, District Sangrur - respondent No. 2 herein, in the form specified clearly mentioned that he had taken his final examination result whereof was awaited. On the basis of the information given by him in the form with regard to his educational qualifications as also that he had already taken the final examination of the diploma, he was permitted to appear in the Entrance Test which, concededly, is prescribed for securing admission to do degree in Engineering with the respondent-institute. In the Entrance Test, petitioner secured 8th position and was entitled to be admitted to the course in Electronic and Communication Engg. The interview, which was only a formality and wherein only relevant certificates had to be shown, was slated for July 17, 1995. The petitioner did appear for interview was not given admission on the sole ground that the result of final year of diploma course that he had taken in Uttar Pradesh had so far not been declared. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the Uttrakhand agitation in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the examinations took place a little late and the results were expected to come around August, 1, 1995. The petitioner in terms explained his difficulty to the Director of the respondent-Institute and requested that he may be atleast considered for provisional admission in the course under contention. In support of his plea, as aforesaid, petitioner also pleaded with the Director of the Institute that there was every reason to accommodate him particularly when the results of the students of respondent-Institute itself had also not been declared. In that regard, it was pleaded that there would be no student seeking vertical entry into the course, from the institute itself on the date when the petitioner appeared for interview or even for that matter when the classes would start and, therefore, there was no logic in denying admission to him on the sole ground that the result of his qualifying examination had so far not been declared. Petitioner had even approached the Principal of K.L. Polytechnic College, Roorkie from which institution he had taken his final examination of diploma requesting him that results should be declared without much delay. However, when the petitioner, despite his entreaties as mentioned above, was unable to secure admission in spite of his merit in the
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.