LAWS(P&H)-2014-8-234

ABHYAJIT SEKHON Vs. CHANDIGARH ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE COUNSELLING JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE-2014 AND ORS.

Decided On August 14, 2014
Abhyajit Sekhon Appellant
V/S
Chandigarh Engineering And Architecture Counselling Joint Admission Committee -2014 And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner has claimed admission to the engineering course under the Freedom Fighter Category but he was however denied the admission against the said category on his alleged failure to comply with the requirements of proof of eligibility of consideration under the said category as stipulated in the brochure. The clause 3.17 of the published brochure required that all successful registered candidates, who had also opted one or more reservation benefit in the registration form like BC, WPD, Freedom Fighter etc. shall report in person with all supporting documents for verification at Punjab University, Chandigarh. The certificate was required to be one that has been issued not later than 30.07.2014. The requirement of personal attendance was also stipulated specifically in the brochure requiring that registered candidates who wanted to avail benefit of any of reserve categories must also report in person for verification of the certificates setting out schedule, which in relation to freedom fighter category was to be between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm. The petitioner's admitted case was that the certificates were required to be submitted before 13.07.2014 but the 'relationship certificate' could not be produced since there had been certain delay on the part of the officials who were required to issue the certificates. The petitioner would refer to the communications between various officials particularly of the Deputy Commissioners, SAS Nagar, Mohali and Fatehgarh Sahib about who was competent to issue the certificate, where the freedom fighter Ujjagar Singh resided at Attewali. The certificate was ultimately issued only on 18.07.2014. Evidently, the petitioner did not have a certificate issued before 13.07.2014 as required. The other requirement of falling within the category was the production of pension passbook or conferment of Tamar Patra of the freedom fighter to whom the candidate was related. The petitioner would claim that he had mailed the copies of all certificates to reach by 16.07.2014 and even if the relationship certificate had not been issued before the last date as required under the brochure, the copies sent through email were sufficient proof of the requisite evidence.

(2.) The respondent who had referred to the schedule setting out the time line as binding would also bring proof to the Court to state that the petitioner who was required to be present with the certificates for verification on 16.07.2014 was not actually present, as evident from the attendance sheet that had left the column against the petitioner's name blank, while the persons who had actually been present had signed against their respective names. This would bring home the point that apart from the fact that the petitioner was not present, he had also not produced the proof in the manner required. The counsel would also state that there was simply no scope for diluting the requirements of the manner in which the proof was to be delivered and the date before when the documents had to be submitted for verification, there were at least 11 persons who had got marks above the petitioner, but did not report on the same day like the petitioner and therefore they were kept out of consideration. There were 9 persons, who had actually reported but who did not provide the proof in the manner required and, therefore, they were also rejected. Though there were 35 vacancies in the category of Freedom Fighters Dependents, on account of adequate persons not being shown to be eligible, they were transferred to the general vacancies and admissions have also been given. Counsel would argue that against general category itself, the petitioner did not qualify for the counselling on 13.08.2014.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner would state that his eligibility has come through documents and the documents produced clearly showed his bona fide status as a dependent of a freedom fighter. According to him, the petitioner ought to be considered essentially for two reasons; one, the failure to produce the relationship certificate could not be attributed to him and it occurred on account of officials who were responsible to issue the certificate not carrying their obligations properly. Two, the petitioner's proof as falling within the Freedom Fighter Dependent Category had been actually despatched through email and that itself ought to be taken as sufficient.