MADHU BALA Vs. SITAL SINGH SARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for admission to the Diploma in Physical Education course against one of the 40 seats advertised in respondent No. 2, Shaheed Kanshi Ram College of Physical Education, Bhagoo Majra. The admission was to be made on the basis of marks obtained in the qualifying graduate examination after passing a physical test. On declaration of the result on 1.8.1998, it was found that the petitioner had not succeeded in getting admission on merit. The petitioner approached the respondent-College time and again over the next few days but was informed that no seat was available as the seats were filled up by the persons higher in merit. It is the petitioner's case that though she has been denied admission on the ground that she was not in the merit, yet two candidates, namely, Rajan Preet Kaur and Kiran Deep, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, who were lower in merit had nevertheless been granted admission in the course in question. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.

(2.) On notice of motion, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 College as also on behalf of respondent No. 3, the Punjabi University, Patiala. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been pointed out that respondent No. 4, Rajan Preet Kaur belonged to the reserved category of Teachers wards and as she was at Sr. No. 1 on the waiting list of that category and a seat in that category had fallen vacant, she had been granted admission thereunder. It has further been pleaded that respondent No. 5, Kiran Deep had been granted admission on the directive issued by the Vice Chancellor, Punjabi University, Patiala on the creation of an additional seat for her. A copy of the communication dated 13.8.1998 addressed by the University to the Principal of the College has been appended as Annexure R-1/1 with the reply. Two separate replies have been filed by respondent No. 3. As the first one was wholly vague a direction was issued that an additional written statement be filed. The additional written statement dated 8.2.1999 is also on record and in para 5 of the written statement, it has been submitted that two additional seats for the Sessions 1998-99 had been created for respondent No. 5 and one Vivek Chhabra as both these candidates belonged to the sports category and it was thought that sportsmanship would be promoted by the creation of additional seats. It has been pleaded that both these seats had been created subject to the approval of the Academic Council and during the course of the hearing, it has been pointed out that this approval had been granted in the meeting held on 1.2.1999.

(3.) Mr. Sitta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that in the light of the written statement filed by the respondents, it was evident that respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who had been granted admission, were lower to the petitioner in merit. Arguing further, he has urged that it was evident from Annexure R-1/1 and also from the record produced in Court that the Pro-Vice Chancellor had ordered the creation of an additional seat for respondent No. 5 despite the fact that she had failed to qualify the physical test for admission to the course, which was a pre-requisite for being called for interview prior to admission. He has also pointed out that no provision had been referred to by the University, which authorised the Vice Chancellor to create an additional seat and that too for a specific candidate.