MISS CHITRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a notification dated Feb. 1, 1999 the State of Punjab appointed the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (for short PTU) as an authority competent to conduct the Common Entrance Test, 1999 (CET). On the basis of this test, the PTU was required to make admissions to various degree level Engineering and Architecture courses being run in the institutions and Universities located in the State of Punjab. The institutions for which admissions were to be made included the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala (respondent No. 3). Conditions of eligibility for admission to the courses were specified in the notification. Clause (C) (iv) of this notification provided that reservation policy for making admissions in various Engineering/Professional Institutions approved by the State Government and circulated as per its letter dated June 30, 1998 modified by letter dated Sept. 8, 1998 would be applicable in toto. It was further provided in clause (ix) of this notification that information about the eligibility for admission to the degree courses in Engineering Colleges and Departments of Universities and also about the institution/discipline/category-wise availability of seats and reservation of seats for various categories would be available in the Admission Brochure to be issued by the PTU. Thereafter by another notification issued on March 22, 1999 it was notified that admissions to the various courses in respondent No. 3 and the Universities in the State would be made by them at their own level on the basis of the interse merit of the CET. Clause (ix) of the earlier notification dated Feb. 1, 1999 was amended accordingly. In view of this amendment, respondent No. 3 issued its own Information Brochure for Under-Graduate and Post-Graduate programmes in Engineering and Sciences. It is clear from a reading of this Brochure that reservation had been made for different categories of students but no reservation was provided for candidates belonging to a Backward area. PTU, however, had issued its own Brochure which provided as under :

(2.) Petitioner appeared in the CET and cleared the same. She had opted for Computer/Electronics Engineering but according to her merit in the CET she was given admission by respondent No. 3 in the course of Chemical Engineering. She joined that course and has by now completed the first year. She claims that she belongs to a Backward area in the State of Punjab and that she possesses a necessary certificate in this regard. Her grievance is that respondent No. 3 by not providing for any reservation for candidates belonging to Backward areas has deprived her of admission to the discipline of her choice. 25 seats had been allocated to the course of Computer Engineering by respondent No. 3 and according to the petitioner if 5% reservation had been made for candidates belonging to Backward areas, one seat would fall to the share of this category of candidates and she would have thus been admitted. She has filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to follow the policy of reservation as followed by PTU and reserve 5% seats for candidates belonging to Backward areas and admit her in the course of Computer Engineering or Electronics Engineering as per her choice.

(3.) In response to the notice of motion, respondent No. 3 has filed its written statement. It is averred that his respondent was required to make admission at its own level on the basis of the Brochure issued by it and that it was not bound to follow the reservation policy as followed by PTU or even as formulated by the State of Punjab. It is further averred that respondent No. 3 was bound only by the merit of the candidates in the CET and that admissions made by it were governed by its own Brochure and not by the one issued by PTU. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the notifications dated Feb. 1, 1999 and March 22, 1999 referred to above.