RUPENDER KANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of two connected writ petitions bearing C.W.P. No. 12387 and 18084 of 1991 as common question of law and facts are involved in both these cases. The facts have however, been extracted from civil writ petition No. 12387 of 1991 (Rupender Kansal v. State of Punjab).

(2.) PETITIONER 's ....... academic particulars given in the writ appear to be impressive. He passed middle standard examination from Punjab School Education Board by securing 703 marks out of 800, thus, having a percentage of 87.92% and was placed in the merit list. He thereafter passed matriculation examination from the same board by securing 606 marks out of 800, thus securing 75.75% marks and was again placed in the merit list. After doing 10th Class, he was pursuing his studies at Chandigarh. He had done his 10 + 2 from Government College for Boys, sector 11; Chandigarh, which college is affiliated to the Punjab School Education Board for + 1 and + 2 classes. He had appeared in 10 + 2 examination in the year 1989 from Government College, Chandigarh and secured 339 marks out of 450 i.e. 75.3%. He was again placed in the merit list and offered merit scholarship by the Board. In February, 1991 he, however, came to know that students who had secured less marks than him @page -PunjHar61 had been granted scholarship whereas he had been ignored for the same. He, thus, submitted a representation to the Board clamouring for merit Scholarship. His claim was, however, rejected vide letter dated March 21, 1991 by holding him ineligible on the ground that he had passed 10 + 2 examination from Chandigarh and the Rules do not permit merit scholarship to a student whose parents were not Punjab Government employees and were not serving at Chandigarh or in the areas located around Chandigarh. It is this order conveyed to him through letter aforesaid (Annexure P -2) that has been challenged in this writ by styling the same to be arbitrary as also against the provisions contained in Punjab School Education Board (Award of Board Merit Scholarship) Regulations, 1980.

(3.) THE pleadings of the parties clearly reveal that there are two types of scholarships, one under the 1980 Regulations and the other known as Punjab State Merit Scholarship which is granted under the Scheme. Petitioner has not staked his claim to the scholarship that is governed under the 1980 Regulations and he is clearly not entitled to the same in view of the fact that the provisions contained in the Regulations permit one Scholarship for every thousand candidates or part thereof and commensurate to the students who appeared, the scholarships to be offered were 89 and admittedly the petitioner was below the said merit. However, in so far as claim of petitioner with regard to State Merit Scholarship is concerned, the same clearly is based upon valid grounds. It is not disputed that petitioner has secured percentage of marks entitling him to get State Merit Scholarship but he could not get it only for the reason that the students who are studying in the institutions at Chandigarh and whose parents were Punjab Government employees and were working in Chandigarh or surrounding villages, were alone eligible. Eligibility for grant of State Merit Scholarship to those who had passed 10 + 1 or 10 + 2 examinations from the Institutions located at Chandigarh and thereafter also they had joined some Institution at Chandigarh itself and whose parents were not employees of the Punjab Government or even if they were employees of the Punjab Government, were not living at Chandigarh or villages surrounding Chandigarh, is the only question that needs adjudication by this Court. It is pertinent to mention that father of Miss Charu Narang in C.P. No.18084 of 1991 is a Punjab Government employee as admittedly he is P.C.M.S. Class I officer. The instructions issued vide letter dated August 5, 1991, relied upon by the respondents, do exclude petitioner from the eligibility criteria but could on the sole ground that parents of such students, who have studied at Chandigarh, must necessarily be employees of Punjab Government and also be residing in Chandigarh, petitioners be excluded from the array of considertion. In other words, whether the conditions as spelled out from the instructions quoted above, are such that they violate the principles of equality as enshrined under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India.This Court, after examining the pleadings of the parties as also hearing their learned counsel, is of the considered view that the object behind grant of Punjab State Merit Scholarship is to recognise the merits of students who undertake higher studies in the institutions situated in Punjab as also to further encourage them to pursue their studies in a vigorous manner so as to bring out best talents out of them. Object of granting merit scholarship has nothing to do with parents of such students serving Punjab Government and posted at Chandigarh or village surrounding it. The embargo so as not to grant the merit scholarship simply on the ground that the student concerned had studied in Chandigarh and was also further pursuing his studies at Chandigarh and is parents were not Punjab Government employees and even if they were Punjab Government employees, were not residing at Chandigarh, has no reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved by granting scholarship. That apart, the Government College for Boys, Sector 11, Chandigarh is affiliated to Punjab School Education Board for 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 Classes. For the mere fact that the student concerned is pursuing his studies at Chandigarh, it cannot be said that he has not passed the examination from the institutions located in Punjab as, admittedly, Chandigarh is capital of Punjab. There could be some meaningful defence available to the respondents if the students concerned was residing in some other State and after having passed the concerned examined, joined higher class for pursuing further studies in Punjab State. Herein, petitioner had passed the examination from the Punjab School Education Board and admittedly it is the same examination for all the students, be they are located in the territories forming part of Punjab or Chandigarh. Chandigarh may be a Union Territory but it continues to be capital of Punjab and for that reason it cannot be said that those, who had passed the examinations from the institutions located in Chandigarh and which institutions were affiliated to Punjab School Education Board, were not residents of Punjab.