GAGAN JYOT MANN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for adjudication of this petition is whether the refusal by respondent No. 2 to admit the petitioner in Fashion Design Course despite her securing merit in the Entrance Test is legal and justified.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2/institute established by the Punjab Government in collaboration with National Institute of Fashion Technology (in short the 'niift') New Delhi for educating young men and women who have a flak and aptitude for fashion design and an entrepreneurial acumen for career and business in textiles, garments etc. In response to the notice issued by the NIIFT for admission against 30 seats of diploma in fashion design, about 400 candidates including the petitioner submitted their applications. The petitioner passed the Entrance Test held on 90/20. 7. 1997. After screening 100 candidates were called for Situation Test. The petitioner was one among them. She qualified the Situation Test held on 29. 8. 1997 and was placed the merit list. Although there is some dispute between the parties about her merit position inasmuch as the petitioner claimes that she was placed at No. 12 and the respondent-Institute pleaded that she was placed at No. 14, the same is irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication of the question referred to herein above. Vide letter dated 11. 9. 1997. (received by her on 15. 9. 1997) the petitioner submitted a Bank Draft for Rs. 11525.00 issued by the Punjab and Sindh Bank Dehradun in the favour of NIIFT along with a letter though speed post on 17. 9. 1997, which was received in the post office at Mohali on 19. 9. 1997. Vide letter Annexure P/4 26. 9. 1997 the petitioner was informed that the received against which she was given admission has been offered to the next candidates because she, i. e. , the petitioner did not comply with the instruction contained in the letter dated 11. 9. 1997. The Bank draft was also returned to her.

(3.) IN its reply, respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection of delay. Its plea is that the petitioner is guilty of laches because she has filed the writ petition on 5. 11. 1997, i. e. , after almost one month and 10 days of the cancellation of her admission and in the absence of any cogent explanation of this delay, the Court should not give any relief to her. Another objection raised by the respondent No. 2 relates to non-impleadment of the student to whom the admission was offered against the seat of the petitioner, However, we need not deal with this objection in detail because Miss N. S. Rupali was subsequently impleaded as respondent to the writ petition. On merit, the respondent No. 2 has pleaded that due to the petitioner's failure to deposit the requisite fee and to bring the original certificate for verification, her admission had to be annulled and the next candidate in the order of merit had to be admitted. Respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that the petitioner was required to appear personally on 22. 9. 1997 or 23. 9. 1997, but she did not turn up and therefore, the impugned decision does not suffer from any illegality.