RITU KARWA Vs. PANJAB UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having passed her B.A. from the Government College, Chandigarh, sought admission in the Post Graduate Course in History, or Public Administration or Sociology in the Panjab University, Chandigarh. The counselling/interview for admission to the courses aforesaid was fixed for 23.7.1998 in the premises of the Panjab University. It appears, however, that the petitioner's grandmother passed away in her village Katehra, Tehsil Fazilka District Ferozepur, on 17.7.1998, with the result that she could not attend the counselling on 23.7.1998. It is the admitted case that students lower to her in merit have been granted admission in one or the other of the three departments. The petitioner, however, came to Chandigarh, on 30.7.1998 and vide Annexure R-2, dated 30.7.1998 made an application to the Vice Chancellor, explaining the circumstances in which she had been unable to attend the counselling on 23.7.1998. The Vice Chancellor marked the application on that very day to the Dean University Instructions (D.U.I.) with the observation that the petitioner's case be considered as per rules applicable for late applicants. This was endorsed by the D.U.I. as well. The petitioner subsequently moved another application Annexure R-3 with the reply, but it was again ordered that the earlier order of the D.U.I. be complied with. The net result is that the petitioner has been unable to get admission in any of the three departments. Frustrated thereby, she has come to this Court.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that she had been unable to attend the counselling in question for reasons beyond her control and as a death had occurred in her family on 17.7.1998, she being a young student was not in a position to travel alone about 300 k.m. from her village to Chandigarh. She has also pleaded that though she has been denied admission by virtue of the orders passed on Annexures R-2 and R-3, yet two students Sukhwinder Singh and Balbir Singh had been granted admission in the Department of Laws although they too, had not appeared for counselling on the date fixed in their case which too was 23.7.1998. The plea, therefore, is that the petitioner had been unfairly treated in the matter vis-a-vis these two students.

(3.) A reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondent-University and a reference has been made to Admission guideline No. 17 for the year 1998 which clearly bars admission of a candidate who has not appeared for counselling/interview and to guideline No. 21 which authorises the late admission of a candidate with high merit provided certain conditions are fulfilled by that candidate. It is the admitted position that the petitioner does not fulfil the condition under this guideline. While referring to the admissions granted to Sukhwinder Singh and Balbir Singh aforesaid, a reference has been made to Annexure R-1 dated 10.9.1998, a communication addressed by Dr. Veer Singh, Professor & Chairman of the Department of Laws, to the Chairman of the Admission Committee, in which it has been pointed out that these two candidates, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste Category were high up in merit and were to be granted admission in the General Category but they had failed to appear before the Interview Committee on the date fixed for this category and on a representation made by them to the Vice Chancellor, had pleaded their ignorance of the rules with regard to their admission also in the General Category and it was in this situation that the D.U.I and the Vice Chancellor had ordered that the Board of Control could consider their cases for admission in the General Category if the seats were available.