ROHIN KAUSHAL Vs. AALOK JAGGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of four Letters Patent Appeals 1689, 1699, 1709 and 1710 of 2000 - all of which are directed against the judgment dated 10-11-2000 passed by the learned single Judge disposing of four writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, the facts giving rise to L.P.A. No. 1689 of 2000 are being noticed.

(2.) Admissions to the B.A.LL.B 5 year Degree Course for the academic session 2000-2001 were made by the Army Institute of Law, Patiala (for short the institute) on the basis of merit of entrance test which was held in May, 2000 on All India basis. The last date for the receipt of application forms for the entrance test was 31-3-2000. After the declaration of result of the entrance test, successful candidates were required to apply for admission to the course at the Institute by submitting duly filled in application forms. The classes for the LL.B. first semester started in July, 2000. There were in all 60 seats to be filled out of which 48 were reserved for Wards of Army Personnel and 9 for Punjab Residents. Three seats were meant for All India General Category candidates. Clause 2. 4.3 of the prospectus issued by the Institute provided that in order to claim the benefits of ward of Army Personnel Category/Punjab Residents/All India General Category the required certificate shall be submitted along with the application form for the entrance test. This clause further provided that in case an applicant fails to submit the required certificate along with the application form, then he/she would be considered only for general category. Clause 4.2 of the prospectus laid down the eligibility criteria for children of Punjab Residents. It provides that in order to claim the benefit of Punjab Resident Category, the applicant will have to attach the required certificates referred to in 'Annexure-II' along with the application forms. It also provides that seats, if any, remaining unfilled in Army quota would be filled by the children of Punjab Residents/General Category. The appellants herein were given admission to the course as they fulfilled all the conditions and attached the requisite certificates along with their application forms. Aalok Jagga respondent who admittedly had secured more marks than the appellants in the entrance test was denied admission to the course solely on the ground that he failed to attach with his application form an affidavit of his parent/guardian to the effect that they or their children had not obtained the benefit of residence in any other State which, according to the Institute, was a necessary requirement of clause 4.2 of the prospectus. He then filed civil writ petition 9422 of 2000 in this Court impleading amongst others the appellants herein as respondents challenging the admission granted to them on the ground that he had obtained more marks in the entrance test and that filing of an affidavit of the parent/guardian was not a necessary requirement of clause 4.2 read with clause 2.4.3 of the prospectus. Similarly, Ms. Sabina Garg and Dharambir Singh Syal who had obtained more marks than the appellants in the entrance test had been refused admission on the same ground and they too challenged the admission of the appellants and others by filing civil writ petitions 9106 and 9033 of 2000 in this Court. One Rahul Ram Pal had also been denied admission to the course and he too challenged the action of the Institute by filing civil writ petition 10082 of 2000 in this Court. All the four writ petitions were heard together by the learned single Judge who on examining the relevant clauses of the prospectus came to the conclusion that filing of an affidavit by the parent/guardian to the effect that they or their children had not obtained the benefit of residence in an other State was not the requirement of clause 2.4.3 read with clause 4.2 of the prospectus and, therefore, the Institute was in error in denying admission to the writ petitioners who admittedly had more marks than the respondents therein (appellants herein). The learned single Judge also found that the residence certificate of Rahul Ram Pal had been attested on 8-5-2000, that is, long after the last date for the receipt of applications for the entrance test and, therefore, he could not be considered eligible for admission to the course. Consequently, Civil Writ Petition 10082 of 2000 filed by him was dismissed whereas the other three Writ Petitions 9422, 9033 and 9106 of 2000 were allowed and the admission granted to the private respondents therein was quashed. Directions were given to the Institute to grant admission to the writ petitioners as they were eligible as per the prospectus. Hence the present appeals by the candidates whose admission have been quashed. It may be mentioned that the Institute has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the filing of an affidavit by the parent/guardian to the effect that they or their children/wards have not obtained the benefit of residence in any other State is a necessary requirement of clause 2.4.3 read with clause 4.2 of the prospectus. Clause 2.4.3 to which reference has been made in the earlier part of our order requires that a candidate who claims the benefit of any reserved category like the Punjab Residents has to submit the required certificate along with the application form for the entrance test. This clause does not require the submission of any affidavit of the kind which the Institute wanted the candidates to submit. It further makes it clear that in case the applicant fails to submit the required certificate then he/she would be considered only for general category. Clause 4.2 lays down the eligibility criteria for children of Punjab Residents category with which we are concerned in these appeals. To claim the benefit of Punjab Resident category the candidate was required to attach the requisite certificates referred to in 'Annexure-II' along with the application form. Annexure-II is the letter dated 6-6-1996 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms circulating guidelines for the grant of residence certificates. A perusal of this letter would show that residence certificate would be issued by the competent authority only when the parent/guardian of the candidate files an affidavit before it to the effect that they or their children/wards had not obtained the benefit of residence in any other State. It is, thus, clear that this affidavit is to be submitted only to the competent authority for the purpose of obtaining the residence certificate which in turn has to be submitted by a candidate along with his application form for the entrance test. The affidavit is not required to be submitted by the candidates for the entrance test as that is not the requirement of either clause 2.4.3 or even 4.2 of the prospectus. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned single Judge that the Institute was not justified in denying admission to the writ petitioners solely on the ground that they had not attached with their application form the aforesaid certificate. The denial of admission to them was, therefore, unwarranted and the learned single Judge was right in directing the Institute to grant admission to the writ petitioners. No fault can, thus, be found with the judgment of the learned single Judge in this regard and the same is upheld.