AJAY KUMAR Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION UNION TERRITORYCHANDIGARH AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The validity of what is euphemistically called a "spot selection" for admissions to State owned institutions has come to be the spinal issue in this set of sixteen connected writ petitions.

(2.) The issues arising herein being admittedly identical the factual matrix may be aptly picked for the averments in Ajay Kumar v. Chandigah Administration etc., C. W. P. No. 3750 of 1982. The Punjab Engineering College is a prestigious institution of considerable standing imparting engineering education in the Northern region. It offers course of study in seven engineering disciplines. It is wholly State owned and State managed. For the academic Session of 1982-83, 275 seats were offered for admission by the Punjab Engineering College prospectus (Session 1982-83), which were allocated as follows :--

(3.) Ajay Kumar, petitioner, successfully completed as Pre-Engineering Examination securing 436 marks out of maximum of 650 and the percentage of his marks of the merit list on the basis of marks of the four elective subjects of English, Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, worked out to 68.67 percent. In response to a noticed published in "The Tribune' dated June 3, 1982(annexure P/2) by respondent No. 2, the petitioner duly applied for admission on the prescribed from Later, another notice was published in 'The Tribune' on June 28, 1982(annexure P/3), vide which the candidates from the category in which the petitioner fell, and who obtained marks above 68 per cent were called for interview on July 2, 1982. Admittedly, this interview was solely for the purpose of verification of the original certificates and the candidates were to be considered for admission strictly according to merit. The petitioner duly appeared and on that date merit lists were drawn up and in accordance therewith, 119 seats for the Chandigarh Pre-Engineering candidates as sole the 79 seats for Pre-Engineering candidates of the General Pool, were duly filed. IN accordance with the prescription in the prospectus a waiting list of 41 for the category of Chandigarh Pre-Engineering and a waiting list of 59 for the Pre- Engineering candidates of the General Pool were prepared. The name of the petitioner was kept on the waiting list and he was assured that in case of any vague vacancy arising in future, he shall be called in to report for submitting the fee etc. and would be given admission. It is the petitioner's claim that he kept on enquiring from respondent No. 2, but was told that no more seats were available and thereafter he was never called or intimated after July 2, 1982.