BAKHTAWAR SINGH Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for admission to LL. B. Course run by Panjab University, Chandigarh, for the seats reserved for terrorist victims. The petitioner accordingly appeared in the entrance test and secured 333 rank from amongst 2200 applicants. On the basis of his ranking, the petitioner submitted his admission form, claiming admission in the reserved category quota meant for 'terrorist victims' by appending relevant documents including the certificate issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana in favour of his father. The counselling for admission was held on 13.7.2012. The admission form of the petitioner alongwith documents was thoroughly scrutinized. Finding the petitioner eligible for admission against the seat reserved for 'terrorist victims', the petitioner was admitted. On the asking of Chairperson of the Department, the petitioner had obtained duly attested copy of certificate regarding he being from terrorist effected family. Having been admitted on 17.7.2012, the petitioner was required to deposit fee for six months, which he did. As per the petitioner, his admission was also approved by the Dean University, Instructions and the Board of Control after due scrutiny. Suddenly on 22.8.2012, the petitioner was handed a notice/memo (Annexure P-10) dated 21.8.2012, putting him to notice that his admission was liable to be cancelled as he happens to be the grand son and not the son of 'terrorist victims'. The petitioner prayed for supply of his admission form and other correspondence, besides praying for reasonable time to respond. His admission, however, was cancelled on the same day i.e. 23.8.2012. The impugned order cancelling the admission of the petitioner was served to him on 28.8.2012. The petitioner accordingly has filed this writ petition to challenge the order cancelling his admission.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner has pressed his pleas rather hard by urging that once the admission is granted even rightly or wrongly, after checking of the documents and where there was no misstatement or misleading done by the petitioner, the University would not be legally entitled to cancel the admission. Inherent in the argument is the fact that the petitioner perhaps would concede that he is not eligible for admission against the seat reserved for 'terrorist victims'. The counsel would further urge that the impugned order is a non-speaking one and has put the petitioner to a great prejudice, leaving him without any options, which were available before him, had he been apprised of his ineligibility at an appropriate time. The counsel claims that the petitioner is a University level sportsman and was eligible for admission in the sports category. He, thus, submits that if he had been apprised of his, ineligibility at appropriate time, he would have sought his admission in the reserved category of sportsman. Continuing with his tirade, the counsel complains that the petitioner had an option to seek admission in the LL. B. Course in any of the Institution under the jurisdiction of Punjabi University, he being a graduate of that University.

(3.) I have seriously pondered over the pleas of the petitioner. No doubt, the petitioner has suffered due to gross negligence on the part of respondent-University. This is not a case where the petitioner has provided any misleading information to the respondent-University to claim his admission to the LL. B. Course. The petitioner had placed all the documents with his admission form and on scrutiny thereof, he was granted admission. Still, the issue is if the petitioner is/was eligible to be considered for admission in the category of 'terrorist victims'. The petitioner has to show that he is eligible and, thus, can claim rights under law.