POOJA CHUGH Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is civil writ petition No. 10196 of 2000 filed by Pooja Chugh daughter of Tilak Raj Chugh resident of Fazilka under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India whereby she has prayed for the issuance of writ, order or direct ion especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and admit her to M.C. A. course against one of the seats reserved for border area candidates. She has further prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from granting admission to respondent No. 4 (Shailja Bajaj d/o Prem Lal Bajaj) who is a resident of Ferozepur and as per the prospectus, she was ineligible to be considered against the seats reserved for border area candidates. She has further prayed that in case Shailja Bajaj is given admission, writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing her admission to the said course.

(2.) It has been alleged by her in this writ petition that she was fully eligible for admission to the said course so far as her educational qualifications are concerned. There were 30 seats for admission to the said course under the aegis of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. As per the reservation policy of the University, the quota provided for various categories was as under :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_171_LAWS(P&H)12_2000(1).html</FRM>

(3.) It was provided in the prospectus so far as category D (Border area candidates) is concerned, that a candidate shall be eligible for admission under this category only if he/she is from a town/village within the belt of 10 miles from the international border and has studied for atleast five years there and has passed public examination (Matric or Higher Secondary Part-1) from a school located in border town/village (excluding the towns Kerozepur, Gurdaspur). It was further provided that a candidate applying for admission under Category D was required to obtain two certificates - one from the DC/GA to the DC of the District or SDO (Civil/SDM with the town/village being within 10 miles limits from the international border, and another from the headmaster/Principal of the institution with details of exact date of joining and leaving the school/college. He/she was required to attach these certificates with the application form As per prospectus, the last date for submission of the duly filed forms was 7th July, 2000. Entrance test was to be held on 9.7.2000. Petitioner belongs to Fazilka. It is a border area situated within 10 miles belt of the Indo-Pak border. It has been declared as border area by the Punjab Govt. Petitioner applied for admission as border area candidate. She attached with the admission form the necessary certificates. Admit card was issued to her. She appeared at the entrance test. Entrance test result was declared on 11.7.2000. She secured 52.5% marks. Her rank was 60. Counselling was held on 12.7.2000 so far as general category candidates were concerned. In the case of candidates belonging to the Border area, the counselling was postponed to 27.7.2000. As she had applied for admission as a border area candidate, her counselling took place on 27.7.2000 before respondent No. 3. She was, however, not given admission. She was informed that respondent No. 4 i.e. Shailja Bajaj had been given admission as she had secured 53.5% marks and her rank was 57 and had thus preferential right to admission. It has been further allegedly the petitioner that she brought to the notice of respondent No. 3 as well as respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 4 belonged to Ferozepur and as per the information brochure/prospectus issued for admission to the MCA course by the University, candidates belonging to Ferozepur and Gurdaspur were not to be considered as border area candidates. It has been alleged by her that Shailja Bajaj respondent No. 4 could not be considered for admission as a border area candidate as Ferozepu rand Gurdaspur had been specifically excluded from being taken as border areas in the prospectus/information brochure. In view of what had been made known to the candidates so far as eligibility to admission was concerned in the prospectus, Shailja Bajaj had no right to be viewed as border area candidate being resident of Ferozepur when the towns of Ferozepur and Gurdaspur had been specifically excluded from being taken as border areas. It has been alleged that the admission of respondent No. 4 over the head of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and is not sustainable as prosepectus issued for admission to a course and the force of law and it was not open to alteration. It has been further alleged that the validity or otherwise of the information brochure and its binding nature is to be examined by the generality of the cases it covers had not by the inconvenience or the resultant prejudice that might be caused to persons who strictly could not adhere to its terms. A Jaw has to be adjudged for its constitutionality by the generality of cases it covers, not by the freaks and exceptions it martyrs. It has been further alleged that in matters of reservation of seats, govt. is. bound by the terms of the prospectus and as such the action of the respondents in not adhering to the terms of the prospectus is illegal and not sustainable in law. . In nutshell, her claim is that she should have been given admission over the head of Shailja Bajaj as a border area candidate as she was a border area candidate in view of what had been laid down in the information brochure which Shailja Bajaj was not; she being from Ferozepur; Ferozepur and Gurdaspur having been expressly excluded from being taken as border areas.