LAWS(P&H)-1989-9-26

RAVNEET BHATWA Vs. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY CHANDIGARH

Decided On September 28, 1989
RAVNEET BHATWA Appellant
V/S
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a member of scheduled castes. He had over 50 per cent marks in the qualifying examination in the 10 + 2 system in order to stake claim to admission in an Engineering College/Institute in the State of Punjab. Statedly there are four institutions which cater to the needs of such aspirants as the petitioner. The Punjab University to whom these colleges are affiliated and institutions attached holds a combined entrance test for determining the merit of candidates seeking admission coming from various sources of qualifying examinations having regard to their equivalency.

(2.) The petitioner sat in the combined entrance test and obtained 71/2 per cent marks approximately. The Government instructions in that regard being Annexure P1 specifically state that for 20 per cent reservation of seats meant for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes a candidate, in order to obtain admission relatively on merit, must secure 10 per cent marks in the combined entrance test. Likewise, the general category candidates must obtain 15 per cent marks. Now if the requisite standard of 10 per cent marks and above are not secured by Scheduled Caste candidates within their 20 per cent reservation, the Colleges, and in particular the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, respondent No. 2 opt for releasing the seats meant for Scheduled Castes in favour of general category candidates in terms of the Govt. instructions Annexure P1. The petitioner, was denied admission by the Institute. As stated at the Bar, he had also applied to the Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana, but his application was not considered by the said Institution being incomplete. This has given rise to this petition.

(3.) Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance says that the combined entrance test is only meant to determine the eligibility and once that eligibility is determined one has to fall back on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. It has been pressed into service that the qualifying marks obtained by the petitioner are fairly high. We are not impressed by this argument, for it appears to be lopsided. It defies imagination that if qualifying marks were the determining factor, what was the use of the combined entrance test. The combined entrance test, as it appears to us, is to marshal varied academic standards prevailing in Boards and other Institution which provide the raw material to be inducted in the Engineering Colleges. If Mr. Sibal's argument has to be accepted, the very purpose of the combined entrance test would be defeated. We reject this argument outright.