ANUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had appeared in Combined Entrance Test, conducted by Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, in May, 1994 for admission to the engineering course. Result of the test was declared on 21.6.1994. The petitioner was assigned merit position at No. 208. Before appearing in the test, he had passed 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 examination from Chandigarh. On the basis of his performance at the test, the petitioner applied for admission to various colleges in the State of Punjab. Interview for final allocation of the college and the subject was held on 22.7.1994. The petitioner appeared before the examination -committee. He was granted admission in the subject of Electronics at Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Saheb. The petitioner presented himself before the Principal of the College on 22.7.1994, but his request was not entertained. On that day, the Principal of the College refused admission to the petitioner on the ground that he did not fulfil the conditions of eligibility prescribed by that College. The petitioner was directed to contact the Coordinator, CET Admissions -94 (respondent No. 2). Therefore, the petitioner met respondent No. 2 and moved an application for admission pending decision of the dispute on the question of his eligibility. On this application, respondent No. 2 recorded a note that the case may be treated as a disputed case and he may be given admission. The petitioner then contacted head of the trust, which runs Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib. According to him, the head of the trust wrote on the original form that the petitioner should be admitted. However, Principal of the College once again refused to give admission to the petitioner.

(2.) CASE of the petitioner is that the conditions incorporated in the admission policy of Baba Banda Singh Engineering College, Fatehgarh Sahib, (Annexure P/11) were not made known to the petitioner and, therefore, such conditions could not be enforced against him. He also assailed the constitutionality of the admission policy on the ground that reservation of 70% seats for the students from rural area is unconstitutional, being contrary to Article 14. He has also pleaded that a number of other students, who have done their 10 +1 and 10 + 2 from Chandigarh, have been granted admission in other Engineering Colleges. A specific reference to the case of Gorinder Singh Cheema, who was granted admission in Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, has been given. The petitioner has also stated that he is a bonafide resident of the State of Punjab and is a domicile of Punjab and, therefore, he could not have been denied admission in the subject of Electronics in the respondent -College at Fatehgarh Sahib, merely on the ground that he had passed his 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 from Chandigarh.

(3.) IN Meenal Sharma's case, on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondent No. 2, policy framed by the Government of Haryana for admission to MBBS Course (1994), which required that a student should have passed 10th, 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 examination from an educational institution within the Haryana State, was challenged. A Division Bench of this Court considered the matter. The two learned Judges differed on the issue of constitutionality of the provision and, therefore, the matter was referred to the third Judge (myself). After considering various decisions of the Supreme Court including the often -quoted judgment in Pardeep Jain v. Union of India,' : AIR 1984 S.C. 1420 I expressed my agreement with the view of Kapoor J. that requirement of study as a regular student in an institution recognised in Haryana for 10th, 10 + 1 and 10 + 2 classes does not suffer from the vice of discrimination or arbitrariness. It has been held in that case that the Government has the power to lay down a policy of admission and while doing so, it has the right to provide for reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage of seats in schools/colleges within that region. In view of that judgment, I do not find any ground to accept the submission of learned counsel and declare the above referred provision to be unconstitutional. The judgment of Goa in Mhawla Abdul Aziz Gulam Hussain 's case (supra) was considered by me and distinguished. The second judgment of Goa is based on, AIR 1974 Goa Daman and Deo 26 and therefore, that decision is also of no help to the case of the petitioner. Similarly judgment of Supreme Court in Pardeep Tondon's case (supra) is actually of no help to the case of the petitioner because once it is held that admission policy framed by the College requiring that a candidate should have passed 10 + 2 examination from schools/colleges situated in the State of Punjab is constitutionally valid, the issue relating to reservation of 70% seats for the candidates belonging to rural areas does not call for any adjudication by this Court. In fact if the petitioner does not fulfill the basic condition of eligibility prescribed by the College, he can hardly have any grouse against the reservation of seats in favour of the candidates belonging to rural areas.