JIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The circumstances leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that Jit Singh, hereinafter referred to be as the petitioner, sought admission in the Punjab Institute of Textile Technology-cum -Industrial Training Institute, Amritsar, for which the minimum qualification was matriculation with science subjects or Higher Secondary, Part I, with science subjects, with at least 50 per cent marks. It is alleged by the petitioner that his name appeared in the waiting list at No. 1, while that of one Bubbal Walia appeared at No. 5 or so. Principal (respondent No. 3) recommended the name of Bubhal Walia for admission to the Director if Industries and Industrial Training, Punjab, through respondent No. 2. The petitioner is alleged to have represented against the said step of respondent No. 3 to the Director of Industries and Industrial Training, Punjab, as also the Minister for Industries and Industrial Training and the Chief Minister, Punjab. Eventually, the Director (respondent No. 1) passed the following order, on 18th of November 1969, in pursuance of the order of the Minister concerned, on the basis of which the petitioner was then admitted to the said course "Shri Bubhal Walia be struck off and admit Shri Jit Singh at his place. "

(2.) As a result of the above order, the petitioner was admitted, but at the time of admission the Principal directed the petitioner under duress and undue influence that he should give an undertaking in writing that in case there is any shortage of lectures and the Technical Board does not condone the same, he would not raise any claim whatsoever and then petitioner gave in writing such an undertaking simply with a view to avoid any unpleasantness and safeguard his interst of studies, but later on alleged to have made a representation to the Director and other authorities against the said coercive and harassing attitude of the authorities towards him. it is further alleged that in the month of March 1970, the Principal put up a notice to the effect that the lectures of the petitioner were short i. e. as against 448 lectures required to be attended, he had attended only 416 lectures meaning thereby that he was short of 32 lectures only up to 28-2-1970 and this led the petitioner to represent to the Chief Minister, Punjab who is alleged to have passed the following order, as contained in his letter No. 1003, dated 9-4-1970, to the Director, Technical Board " To be considered sympathetically, it seems there is no fault of the applicant. If so, then it is a deserving case and may be agreed to. " The petitioner having not been informed about the action taken on his representation and the Principal not being prepared to release his roll number and the examination approaching fast, he made another representation to the Chief Minister, Punjab, who is alleged to have passed the following order, as contained in his letter No. 151, dated 30-4-1979 "The applicant alleges that due to wrong admission in the first instance he was ignored but it was after 3 months that the wrong admission was set aside and he was given admission, which was due to him. if this is correct then there is no fault on the part of the applicant and he should not be made to suffer. Subject to this being true and also subject to my having powers, I would like that the applicant may be allowed to sit in the test and the whole case examined afterwards. " The petitioner, as alleged in paragraph 6 of the petition, had also made a representation (annexure 'A') to the Minister of Industries and Industrial Training, Punjab, who passed the following order in his representation as contained in his letter No. 380, dated 30-4-1970, to the Director, Technical Board, Punjab "As a special case the applicant should be allowed to appear in the examination. As he could not join earlier due to indecision. This fault is of the Department or the Government . " This order, so alleges the petitioner, had its desired effect and roll No. 6258 was released to him and on the basis thereof he appeared in the first paper on 15-5-1970, but the very next day i. e. , 16-5-1970 the petitioner was informed about some communication having been received from the Director (respondent No. 1) that the petitioner cannot be permitted to appear in the examination and was, therefore, required to give an undertaking that in case the Director, Technical Education, does not agree to the condonation of the lectures of the petitioner , he would not lay any claim against the department which fact again led the petitioner to represent to the Minister of Industries, who then happened to be at Amritsar and the said Minister passed the following order on 17-5-1970, and thereby directed the Principal to let the petitioner sit in the examination provisionally "The applicant should be allowed to sit in the examination provisionally. Later on, the whole case may be examined on its merits. " So the petitioner was permitted to appear in the next paper on 18-5-1970, but again when he went to appear in the third paper on 20-5-1970 and when he was abut to start his paper, the Superintendent Examination (respondent No. 4) snatched away the paper and answer book from the hands of the petitioner stating that in pursuance of orders of the Director, Technical Education, he cannot be permitted to appear in the said paper and, therefore, turned the petitioner out of the Examination Hall.

(3.) This unreasonable attitude of the Superintendent Examination (respondent No. 4) let the petitioner to file the present writ petition in this Court on 24-5-1970 and the petitioner secured a direction from this Court on 25-5-1970 directing the respondents to permit him to appear in the examination and so the petitioner appeared in the subsequent papers, but before the petitioner could secure the redress from this Court, he had already been made to miss some papers.