PARMVEER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has passed the All India Senior School Certificate Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education from the D.A.V.College, Sector 10, Chandigarh. He claims to be a sportsman. He has been issued a certificate by the Chandigarh Rifle Association for obtaining third position in the Chandigarh State Rifle Shooting Championship held in July, 1999. He also claims to have participated in the IXth G.V.Mavlankar National Shooting Championship held at Ahmedabad in October, 1999. On the basis of his achievements in the event of shooting, the Chandigarh Administration Directorate of Sports has issued to him a sports gradation certificate in grade C-III.Admissions to different Engineering courses in the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the College) and the Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, of the Punjab University (for short the University) were to be made on the basis of a common entrance test conducted by the University on May 19th and 20th, 2000 provided the candidates were otherwise eligible for admission to the institution in terms of the eligibility conditions prescribed by the University. Being eligible for admission to an Engineering course in the College for the academic session 2000-2001, the petitioner took the common entrance test conducted by the University. He obtained 76.75 marks out of 360 and his rank in the merit list was 7380. He was issued the result card on 17-6-2000. The candidates who had been issued the result cards of the common entrance test were required to apply for admission to the Ist year of Bachelor of Engineering Courses in the College for which the University had issued a joint admission brochure. As per the brochure the last date for receipt of completed application forms in the concerned College/Department was 30-6-2000 up to 5 p.m. It was specifically provided in the brochure that the applications must reach the concerned College latest by this date irrespective of the date of receipt of the result cards by the candidates. 2% of the total seats in the College were reserved for sports persons like the petitioner and these come to a total of 7. Petitioner applied for admission for a seat reserved for sports persons in the Ist year Engineering Course in the College and submitted his application along with the sports gradation certificate well within the time prescribed in the prospectus. The relevant clause 2.2.5.3 of the prospectus reads as under:

(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that the writ petition deserves to succeed. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner had filed his application for admission to the course along with the sports gradation certificate well within the prescribed time and it was complete in all respects. Respondent No. 4, on the other hand, had applied for admission on 29-6-2000 which application though within time was not accompanied by the sports gradation certificate as required by clause 2.2.5.3 of the prospectus. This certificate on her own showing was produced by her on 18-7-2000 at the time of counselling. Since the application of respondent No. 4 was not complete the same should not have been entertained in terms of the aforesaid clause of the prospectus no matter what the merit of the candidate was. May be the certificate C-II as produced by respondent No. 4 was higher in grade than that of the petitioner but that would not entitle her to admission because the same was not produced along with the application. A similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court in Manish Nanda v. State of Punjab Vivil Writ Petition 12164 of 1996 decided on 11-9-1996. Petitioner therein applied for admission to an Engineering course and wanted the benefit of reservation for a sports person. As per the prospectus the sports gradation certificate issued by the Director of Sports, Punjab was to be produced for getting the reservation benefit under the Sports Category'. This certificate was not produced along with the application form though it was produced at the time of counselling. The action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioner therein was challenged before this Court and from the pleadings of the parties the question that arose for consideration was whether the requirement relating to the production of certificates mentioned in the prospectus by a particular time was directory or mandatory. The requirement of time was held to be mandatory and Chief Justice K.Sreedharan after referring to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab (1993) 2 Punj LR 212 observed as under:-

(3.) A similar question arose before a Full Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjab University, Patiala (1996) 1 RSJ 1 : (AIR 1996 Punj and Har 109) wherein it was held "that there has to be a cut off date provided for admissions and the same cannot be changed afterwards. " It was also held by the learned Juges that an institution has necessarily to fix a cut off date for admissions as non-fixation thereof would result in non-finalisation of admissions for an indefinite period. It must, therefore, be held in the present case as well that the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in granting admission to respondent No. 4 is illegal being contrary to the provisions of the prospectus and cannot be sustained.