Back
1989 Supreme(P&H) 887
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.L.Bahri, J.
Charanjit Kaur
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 11348 of 1989,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 11, 1989
Granting weightage to spouses/children of University employees for admission to M.Phil course is discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
EDUCATION - ADMISSION - M.PHIL COURSE - WEIGHTEGE TO EMPLOYEES' DEPENDENTS - DISCRIMINATORY - VIOLATIVE OF ART.14 - ADMISSION GRANTED TO RESPONDENT NO.4 QUASHED - PETITIONER DIRECTED TO BE ADMITTED TO THE COURSE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, Charanjit Kaur, sought admission to M.Phil course at Kurukshetra University. She belonged to the Backward Class category and had secured 58.50% marks in M.A. (Hindi). Respondent No. 4, Darshan Devi, also applied for admission under the reserved quota for Backward Class. She had secured 53.44% marks, below the minimum standard of 55%. The University admitted Darshan Devi by relaxing the rule and allowing weightage up to 5% marks, considering her status as a K.U. student and the daughter of a University employee.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the rule providing weightage to spouses/children of University employees was discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. It observed that the weightage of 5 marks given to Darshan Devi for being the daughter of a University employee was not justified and put the petitioner at a disadvantage.
Issues: 1. Whether the rule providing weightage to spouses/children of University employees was discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether Darshan Devi was rightly admitted to the course, and if not, to what effect? 3. Whether the petitioner was wrongly denied admission?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision in Ashwinder Kaur v. Punjab University, Chandigarh, AIR 1989 Punj and Har 190, which held that weightage to students for being children of employees/fellows of the University was discriminatory and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. 2. The court found that Darshan Devi was wrongly admitted to the course as she was given weightage for being a K.U. student and the daughter of a University employee, which was not justified under the regulations. 3. The court held that the petitioner was wrongly denied admission as she had higher marks than Darshan Devi and should have been admitted on merit.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the admission of Darshan Devi, and directed the University to admit the petitioner to the M.Phil course by creating another seat if necessary.
1. In this writ petition filed under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution, Charanjit Kaur, the petitioner, seeks a mandamus directing respondents Nos. 2 and 3, Kurukshetra University and the Chairman, Department of M.Phil. (Hindi) of the said University, to admit the petitioner in M.Phil course by quashing admission of Darshan Devi, respondent No. 4.
2. In response to prospectus of the University for the year 1989-90, the petitioner applied for admission in the said course. She belongs to Backward Class category. She had passed M.A. (Hindi) from the said University securing 58.50 percent marks as per certificate, Annexure P.2. Darshan Devi, respondent No. 4, had also applied for admission out of the reserved quota of Backward Class. She had secured 53.44 per cent marks which was below the minimum standard prescribed was 55 per cent. The act of the Chairman of the Department of M.Phil (Hindi) in declining admission to the petitioner on merit and arbitrarily admitting Darshan Devi, respondent No. 4, was challenged in the writ petition. The University took up the stand that as per prospectus, by relaxing the rule and allowing weightage up to 5 per cent marks, a candidate could be made eligible. Further, as per prospectus, weightage was to be given to the standards who had passed the examination from the said University as well as to the spouses/children of permanent employees of the University. In this manner, it was asserted that respondent No. 4 gained merit over the petitioner. Similar stand was taken by Darshan Devi, respondent No. 4, in her written statement.
3. The position of Charanjit Kaur, the petitioner, as well as Darshan Devi, the respondent, in the matter of giving weightage as shown in the written statement is as under :
Respondent No. 4
Petitoner
Marks obtained in M.A. 53.44% 58.50% Relaxation granted under Regulation VI: 1.56% - Weightage of K. U. studentship: 5.00% 5.00% weightage of employees dependent: 5.00% - 65.00% 63.50%
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the rule providing for weightage to be given to spouses/children of the employees of the University is discriminatory and violative of the provisions of the Constitution. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Ashwinder Kaur V/s. Punjab University, Chandigarh, AIR 1989 Punj and and Har 190. On the other hand, it has been strongly argued on behalf of the respondents that this question should not be permitted to be raised as the same was not taken up in the writ petition and such a question is not purely a question of law or jurisdiction but is dependent upon facts. If opportunity had been given, the relevant facts would have been brought on the record for justifying the rule. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Jagdish Saran V/s. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 820.
5. I have given due consideration to these arguments and I am of the view that the petitioner should succeed even if she is not allowed to raise this question. Ashwinder Kaur s case (AIR 1989 Punj and Har 190) (supra) related to the interpretation of rules and regulations of the Punjab University relating to admission to M.Lib. and Information Science. The question of granting weightage on different counts was considered and Amarjeet Chaudhary, J. observed as under (at p. 193 of AIR):-
"I have looked into this aspect. I consider that the weightages by way of institutional preference (students of Punjab University) certificates of N.C.C., N.S.S., participation in sports, Youth Welfare and Cultural activities, promotion of adult education and the like, are both justifiable and reasonable, so long as these are restricted to a reasonable limit. The maximum weightage on all these counts have been fixed by the University at 15% of the marks. This, to my mind, is reasonable, I, however, find that there is weightage of 5% marks to sons/daughters of Fellows
