ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, invited applications for the academic session 1991 -92 for admission to the Two Year Diploma Course in Pharmacy. The admission of the students in the course aforesaid was directed to be conducted at the central level, through respondent No. 3 i.e. the Government Polytechnic, Ambala City. The petitioner, who had passed the 10 + 2 Examination applied for admission to the second year of the aforesaid Diploma Course as he was, as per the Regulations, entitled to admission in that class. The application was made under the general category as also for the quota reserved for sportsmen, the petitioner also produced a certificate Annexure P-5 which graded him in the category as 'C-1'. It is the case of the petitioner that though he was eligible and meritorious, admission had been denied to him and one Ajit Yadav, who was impleaded as a respondent, vide order dated 18th Dec., 1991, was in fact granted the admission under the category of sportsmen.

(2.) In response to the writ petition, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It has been asserted in the reply that the policy of reservation was not available to the candidates seeking admission directly in the second year, but was confined only to those cases where admission was sought in the first year of the two-year Course. It has also been stated that the admission had been rightly given to Shri Ajit Yadav who had a 'B-1' grade certificate and was, therefore more meritorious.

(3.) Mr. R. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the Supplementary Prospectus issued by the Directorate of Technical Education, Haryana, for the Session 1991-92. In Note (i)(a) of the Chapter relating to admission to the students, it has been stated that the admission against the reserved seats shall be made on the basis of merit in the respective groups. Note (iii)(b) of the Chapter aforestated, however, provides that admission against the sportsmen/women quota will be made as per the criterion laid down by the Government of Haryana. Rule 2 once again reiterates that the admission is to be made strictly on merit and Rule 9 provides the criteria for the determination of the merit of the prospective candidates. The argument of Mr. Gupta is that as the admission was to be made on the basis of merit, the petitioner who had secured 56.4 per cent marks in the entrance examination was required to be preferred to Ajit Yadav aforesaid who admittedly had about 50 per cent marks. He has also urged that as per the decisions of this court, as also the Supreme Court reported as Ranbir Singh Vs. Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala and another, AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 51; Chander Parkash Malhotra Vs. State of Punjab and another, 1989 RSJ 603 and Vimish Jain Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 222 : 1991(1) SCT 613, the admission to educational institutions, even on the seats reserved for sportsmen/women, was to be governed by the marks obtained in the entrance examination in preference to the sports gradation certificates and as such the petitioner having higher marks was entitled to admission. After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the stand of the petitioner is correct.