PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner states that he belongs to a very poor family and his father is engaged in selling green fodder in a suburb of Bhatinda. He being a hard working and brilliant student passed his Pre -Engineering Examination in 1984. The prospectus of the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, Respondent No. 2, provided that 5 per cent seats in the Course for Degree in Engineering were reserved for candidates belonging to backward classes. He applied against one of these seats. The certificate as prescribed and printed in the admission form to the effect that he was born in a family belonging to a backward class was signed by the Tehsildar on the authority of a certificate dated 17th September, 1984. Annexure P1 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Bhatinda. On the basis of academic merit in the Pre -Engineering Examination and the certificate that he belongs to a backward class, he was admitted to the Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) course in the Institute, Respondent No. 2, in October, 1984. Since then, he continued his studies in the Institute. He passed two semester examinations in the year 1985. He also appeared in the third semester examination in December, 1985.

(2.) HOWEVER , on 15th November, 1985, the Principal of Respondent No. 2 issued a notice Annexure P 2 to the Petitioner requiring him to show cause and explain as to how did he take admission against a reserve seat meant for backward classes by giving a false certificate that he belongs to a backward class. He submitted his reply Annexure P 3 explaining that the certificate furnished by him was not a false one. He in fact belongs to a backward class in terms of the Punjab Government policy letter dated 19th November, 1974, as mentioned in Annexure P1. On 21st December, 1985 he received the impugned order Annexure P 4 from the Principal intimating that his admission to the Bachelor of Engineering Course in the Institute, Respondent No. 2, stood cancelled as the information supplied by him at the time of submitting application form was wrong and he had wrongly claimed that he belonged to a backward class.

(3.) THIS petition came up for motion hearing before a Division Bench on 12th February, 1986, when the following order was passed: