BIJENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMISSIONS to various diploma courses in Government/Government Aided/Self - Financing Polytechnics affiliated to the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana for the session 1999 -2000 were made centrally by the Department of Technical Education, Haryana through common diploma entrance tests. There are 26 Polytechnics in the State of Haryana and these conduct three types of diploma courses:

(2.) IN this writ petition, we are concerned with the diploma courses referred to at (iii) above for which admissions were made centrally through a common diploma entrance test (referred to hereinafter as DET). For admission to the diploma course, a candidate was required to pass the 10th class examination from the Board of School Education, Haryana or equivalent from a recognised Board/University with English, Mathematics and Science as compulsory subjects. The DET was conducted by the Government Polytechnic, Nilokheri District Kamal (respondent No. 3). Petitioner appeared in the entrance test and cleared the same. On the basis of his merit, he was given admission in Government Polytechnic, Sirsa in the discipline of Agriculture Engineering. He deposited his fee and other charges and started attending the classes. In November, 1999, sixty new seats were created in Technical Institute, Gurukul Bhainswal Kalan District Sonepat (respondent No. 5) for the diploma courses in Computer Engineering and Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering. Thirty of these seats were in the discipline of Computer Engineering and the other thirty in the field of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering for which respondent No. 5 started the diploma courses for the first time. The Director, Technical Education, Haryana by a notice published in the 'Dainik Tribune' on 22.11.1999 invited applications form eligible candidates who had taken the DET and even from those who did not appear in that examination. They could apply for admission upto 10.12.1999 till 5 PM and the application forms could be obtained from respondent No. 3. The criteria on the basis of which the newly created seats were to be filled up was specified in the notice. It was stated that the candidates who had already been admitted in different trades could apply for a fresh admission in a better trade on the basis of their merit in the DET. Such candidates had to submit their application to the concerned Principal who in turn would forward their applications to respondent No. 3 by 10.12.1999. The admission was open even to those candidates who had applied earlier but could not get admission. Candidates who had appeared in the DET but did not apply for admission could also be considered for admission against the fresh seats. The notice further stated that after following the aforesaid procedure the remaining vacant seats would be filled up from amongst the eligible candidates on the basis of their merit in the Matriculation examination even though they did not appear in the DET. Candidates belonging to Haryana were to be given preference. Petitioner who had earlier been admitted to the first semester of the diploma course in Agricultural Engineering applied for fresh admission in the trade of Computer Engineering and he was admitted in this trade against one of the 'free seals' with respondent No. 5. While the admission process on the basis of the notice dated 22.11.1999 was on and only twelve candidates had been admitted till 19.12.1999, the Director Technical Education realised that on the basis of the criteria published in the notice dated 22.11.1999 some meritorious candidates had been left out. He, therefore, stopped the admissions and it was announced that the admission notice would be re -advertised and the admission of twelve candidates including the petitioner who had by then been admitted would be provisional and that they would be considered afresh alongwith other candidates on the basis of their merit in the DET. In partial modification of the earlier notice, the Director published another notice in 'Dainik Tribune' on 14J.2000 notifying to the candidates that the admissions which were scheduled to be held on 19.12.1999 but were postponed would now be held on 21.1.2000 at Government Polytechnic, Nilokheri. It was also notified that the admissions would be made on the basis of the merit in DET and as per the reservation policy of the State Government. Candidates who had appeared in DET were eligible for admission and they were to be given fresh admission even if they had been admitted earlier in any Polytechnic, it was further notified that the twelve candidates who had been admitted on 19.12.1999 on the basis of the earlier notice would be again considered on the basis of their merit. Fresh interview/counselling was held on 21.1.2000 and the petitioner also appeared. There were other candidates who were higher in merit than the petitioner who were given admission against the 'free seats' and the petitioner was offered a 'paid seat' on the basis of his merit. It is against this action of the respondents that the present petition has been filed under Articled 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN response to the notice of motion, the respondents have filed their reply. It is admitted that sixty new seats (30 in Computer Engineering and 30 in Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering) were sanctioned for respondent No, 5 and that the petitioner was provisionally admitted against a 'free seat' in the discipline of Computer Engineering on 19.12.1999. It is further pleaded that after twelve candidates had been admitted, it was realised that on the basis of the criteria published in the notice dated 22.11.1999 candidates with higher merit had been left out and that the criteria adopted was not as per the prospectus issued for admission to the diploma courses. The admissions were, therefore, postponed and a notice was re -advertised in a leading newspaper on 14.1.2000, according to the criteria as per the prospectus and it was based only on the merit obtained by the candidates in DET. It was also mentioned that the candidates who had been provisionally admitted on 19.12.1999 would also be considered for admission on the basis of their merit in DET. The respondents have also pleaded that the petitioner on the basis of his merit in DET could not be given admission against a 'free sheet' in the discipline of Computer Engineering. He was, however, offered a 'paid seat' which he had declined to accept.