AKVINDER KAUR Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners being duly qualified for the Joint Entrance Test to be held by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, respondent No. 1 herein for admission to the B.Ed. course for the Session 1997-98 in the Colleges affiliated to the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjabi University, Patiala, and the Panjab University, Chandigarh applied for admission to the Malwa Central College of Education for Women, Ludhiana. They appeared in the Joint Entrance Test conducted by the Guru Nanak Dev University in July 1997 and secured between 141 and 142.5 marks in the examination. The Guru Nanak Dev University issued a press note notifying the schedule for interviews and as per this notification, the first interview was to be conducted on 8.8.1997 and it was specifically mentioned that those candidates who were successful would have to deposit their fees immediately failing which their seats would be offered to other eligible candidates. It is the admitted position that at the time of the first interview, candidates having 144 or more marks were admitted. A second round of interviews was thereafter notified by the University and it was provided that those candidates who had secured between 140 and 144 marks were eligible to appear in this interview. The petitioners who fell in this category accordingly reached the venue of the interview, but the interview/admissions were not held on that day as there was some disturbance at that time. The University, thereafter notified 5.9.1997 (vide Annexure P.8) as the date for interview and it was intimated that all the candidates who had secured up to 140 marks could appear on that day. The petitioners as also a large number of other candidates appeared on that day (and as per record which has been made available to me by Mr. Gur Rattan Pal Singh, learned counsel for the University). Candidates who had secured more than 144 marks were admitted. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in admitting (on 5.9.1997) the candidates who had secured more than 144 marks on the plea that the list up to that mark had been exhausted as per the prospectus at the time of the first interview i.e. on 8.8.1997 and the petitioners who had between 140 and 142.5 marks were entitled to admission.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this case and a reply has been filed on behalf of the Guru Nanak Dev University. The University has admitted almost all the averments made by the petitioners on the factual aspects, but the learned counsel appearing for the University has argued that the admission had been given to the candidates higher in order of merit vis-a-vis the petitioners and as such the admission should not be disturbed.

(3.) Mr. Sibal, the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that as per Clause II of the prospectus, the admission procedure had been designed to be transparent and has submitted that the candidates were to be called for interview as per the schedule notified in the press. He has then relied on Annexure P.6 which pertained to the interview which had been held on 8.8.1997 and the conditions under which the admissions were to be made and has referred to conditions No. 1 and 4 in particular which stipulated that the candidates were to attend the interview in person along with the admit card and certain other documents and has emphasised that those candidates who had been selected, were required to deposit their fee on the spot failing which the seat was to be offered to the next candidate in order of merit. Mr. Sibal has pointed out that on that day the candidates having marks up to 144 had been admitted. He has then referred to the Press Note (Annexure P.7) which pertained to the interview proposed to be held on 27.8.1997 and has pointed out that candidates securing 140 to 144 marks alone had to be admitted on that day. It is the admitted position that on 27.8.1997, no interview/admission took place and Annexure P.8 another press note notifying 5.9.1997 as the date of interview was published wherein it was stipulated that candidates securing up to 144 marks would also be eligible for being considered for admission. Mr. Sibal has made a serious challenge to this condition and has urged that the candidates having 144 marks and above had already been admitted to the course on 8.8.1997 as was clear from Annexure P.7 dated 27.8.1997, and the stipulation in Annexure P.8 of reconsidering the case of candidates having up to 140 marks was against the express provisions of Annexure P.6 referred to above. There is merit on this submission. From Annexure P.6, it is evident that a student who had been granted admission was to deposit fees at the spot to secure his/her seat and in case he did not do so, the seat was to be offered to the next candidate. It is evident from Annexure P.7 that the candidates who had got up to 144 marks and had deposited their fees on that date were granted admission and those who did not, forfeited their right to do so. To my mind, such candidates could not be called for another chance on 5.9.1997. It is apparent from the record which has been placed before me that on 5.9.1997 candidates having between 142 to 148.5 marks were given admission. To my mind, this category had virtually exhausted itself during the very first interview on 8.8.1997 and even vide Annexure P.7 only those candidates who had secured between 140 to 144 marks were required to be present on 27.8.1997. From the list which has been placed before me, it appears that at least 8 candidates having more than 144 marks were granted admission on 5.9.1997. To my mind, this was against the express provision of condition No. 4 of Annexure P.6, as these candidates were to be considered for admission on 8.8.1997 only.