ZOE GILL Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miss Zoe Gill through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes strong exception to her non-admission in the Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh, in B. Arch. course by ignoring the relevant Rules governing the admission with a view to accommodate respondent No. 6 - Ms. Anvita Bhatti daughter of Dr. S. S. Bhatti, who, in addition to being principal of the Chandigarh College of Architecture, was also member of the Joint Admission Committee. Her obvious prayer is, thus, for admission in the Chandigarh College of Architecture in B. Arch. course against the seat reserved for dependents of Military/para-military personnels and quashing the admission of Ms. Anvita Bhatti respondent No. 6 in this petition. As the reliefs asked for and, as mentioned above, depend upon one Charandeep Singh to be shifted from the Military pool to the U T Open pool, a direction to the respondents has been prayed for to shift Charandeep Singh from Military pool to the UT open pool on the basis of provisions contained in the Admission Brochure as also on the basis of his request dated September 26, 1995.

(2.) Brief facts, on which the reliefs spelled out, are sought to rest, reveal that a Combined Entrance Test (hereinafter to be referred to as 'CET') was held by the Punjab University, Chandigarh, for admission to the Bachelor of Engineering course at Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh, and Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh, for the Session 1995-96. Petitioner applied and competed along with other candidates and she was placed at CET merit No. 415 in the general merit list. As per Rules and conditions for admission, detailed in the Admission Brochure for the Session 1995-96, three separate application forms were appended with the brochure for different institutions and the candidate had to use the appropriate form to apply for admission to the institution of his / her choice. The candidates was to be considered only for the institution for which he/she had applied. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, she applied for admission to Chandigarh College of Architecture, Chandigarh for B.Arch. Course. Rule 1.2, dealing with submission of applications reads thus:-

(3.) Inasmuch as the father of petitioner was a serving defence personnel, she applied for being considered against the reserved category of Military/para-military. The admission of candidates of different categories was to be made on the basis of merit list prepared by the respective institution. The inter se merit of the candidates for admission was to be determined on the basis of marks obtained in CET only. The last date for submission of applications was July 10, 1995. Later on it was, however, extended up to July 17, 1995. The positive case of the petitioner is that the procedure for filling up the seats under reserved categories clearly reveals that the candidates who applied for admission against the reserved categories would also be considered for admission against the seats allocated for Chandigarh/general pool to which they may belong as per their merit. Relevant Rule 2.3 reads thus:-