Pooja Chugh Vs Guru Nanak Dev University

M.L. Singhal, J.@mdashThis is civil writ petition No. 10196 of 2000 filed by Pooja Chugh daughter of Tilak Raj Chugh resident of Fazilka under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India whereby she has prayed for the issuance of writ, order or direct ion especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider and admit her to M.C. A. course against one of the seats reserved for border area candidates. She has further prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition restraining respondents 1 to 3 from granting admission to respondent No. 4 (Shailja Bajaj d/o Prem Lal Bajaj) who is a resident of Ferozepur and as per the prospectus, she was ineligible to be considered against the seats reserved for border area candidates. She has further prayed that in case Shailja Bajaj is given admission, writ in the nature of certiorari be issued quashing her admission to the said course.

2. It has been alleged by her in this writ petition that she was fully eligible for admission to the said course so far as her educational qualifications are concerned. There were 30 seats for admission to the said course under the aegis of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. As per the reservation policy of the University, the quota provided for various categories was as under :-

3. It was provided in the prospectus so far as category D (Border area candidates) is concerned, that a candidate shall be eligible for admission under this category only if he/she is from a town/village within the belt of 10 miles from the international border and has studied for atleast five years there and has passed public examination (Matric or Higher Secondary Part-1) from a school located in border town/village (excluding the towns Kerozepur, Gurdaspur). It was further provided that a candidate applying for admission under Category D was required to obtain two certificates - one from the DC/GA to the DC of the District or SDO (Civil/SDM with the town/village being within 10 miles limits from the international border, and another from the headmaster/Principal of the institution with details of exact date of joining and leaving the school/college. He/she was required to attach these certificates with the application form As per prospectus, the last date for submission of the duly filed forms was 7th July, 2000. Entrance test was to be held on 9.7.2000. Petitioner belongs to Fazilka. It is a border area situated within 10 miles belt of the Indo-Pak border. It has been declared as border area by the Punjab Govt. Petitioner applied for admission as border area candidate. She attached with the admission form the necessary certificates. Admit card was issued to her. She appeared at the entrance test. Entrance test result was declared on 11.7.2000. She secured 52.5% marks. Her rank was 60. Counselling was held on 12.7.2000 so far as general category candidates were concerned. In the case of candidates belonging to the Border area, the counselling was postponed to 27.7.2000. As she had applied for admission as a border area candidate, her counselling took place on 27.7.2000 before respondent No. 3. She was, however, not given admission. She was informed that respondent No. 4 i.e. Shailja Bajaj had been given admission as she had secured 53.5% marks and her rank was 57 and had thus preferential right to admission. It has been further allegedly the petitioner that she brought to the notice of respondent No. 3 as well as respondent No. 2 that respondent No. 4 belonged to Ferozepur and as per the information brochure/prospectus issued for admission to the MCA course by the University, candidates belonging to Ferozepur and Gurdaspur were not to be considered as border area candidates. It has been alleged by her that Shailja Bajaj respondent No. 4 could not be considered for admission as a border area candidate as Ferozepu rand Gurdaspur had been specifically excluded from being taken as border areas in the prospectus/information brochure. In view of what had been made known to the candidates so far as eligibility to admission was concerned in the prospectus, Shailja Bajaj had no right to be viewed as border area candidate being resident of Ferozepur when the towns of Ferozepur and Gurdaspur had been specifically excluded from being taken as border areas. It has been alleged that the admission of respondent No. 4 over the head of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and is not sustainable as prosepectus issued for admission to a course and the force of law and it was not open to alteration. It has been further alleged that the validity or otherwise of the information brochure and its binding nature is to be examined by the generality of the cases it covers had not by the inconvenience or the resultant prejudice that might be caused to persons who strictly could not adhere to its terms. A Jaw has to be adjudged for its constitutionality by the generality of cases it covers, not by the freaks and exceptions it martyrs. It has been further alleged that in matters of reservation of seats, govt. is. bound by the terms of the prospectus and as such the action of the respondents in not adhering to the terms of the prospectus is illegal and not sustainable in law. . In nutshell, her claim is that she should have been given admission over the head of Shailja Bajaj as a border area candidate as she was a border area candidate in view of what had been laid down in the information brochure which Shailja Bajaj was not; she being from Ferozepur; Ferozepur and Gurdaspur having been expressly excluded from being taken as border areas.

4. Respondents 1 to 3 contested the claim of the petitioner urging that after the information brochure/prospectus had been issued, representations were received from the candidates belonging to Ferozepur City/Cantt. who claimed that their town was also falling within 10 miles of the international border and if they fulfilled the other conditions for being considered for admission in the border area category, they should also be considered for admission in this category. In view of this, there was interaction between the University and the authorities of the Administration and this point was clarified by Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur by his letter dated 4.7.2000. Vice Chancellor of the University considered the matter and ultimately on the orders of the Vice Chancellor, Registrar issued office circular dated 4.7.2000 notifying that Ferozepur Cantt. and City are also to be considered as border, areas. This fact was also given vide publicity and was published in the newspapers as well. In this view of the matter candidates from the border town of Ferozepur were also considered eligible. Respondent No. 4 was considered for the grant of admission in the border area category and she was given admission in view of her superior merit vis-a-vis that of the petitioner. Corrigendum was issued to the prospectus prior to the counselling for admission in border area candidates category. Border area candidates were to be interviewed on 27.7,2000. Corrigendum was issued on 4.7.2000 amending the prospectus.

5. Respondent No. 4 contested the writ petition. It was urged that respondent No. 1 i.e. Guru Nanak Dev University keeping in view the Punjab Govt. notification issued circular dated 4.7.2000 to the effect that Ferozepur Cantt. and Ferozepur City shall be considered as border areas for the purpose of all admissions in the University. Copy of the office circular dated 4.7.2000 is Annexure R-1. Since she is from Ferozepur, she was also considered under the border area category and was rightly given admission because of her superior merit. It was also urged that if the petitioner had approached the Coordinator, MCA Admissions C/o Principal, Lyallpur Khalsa College, Jalandhar (respondent No. 3), she could have been told about the office circular issued by the University on the basis of the Punjab Govt. notification according to which Ferozepur Cantt. and Ferozepur City were included in the list of border areas for the purpose of all admissions. Even before the holding of entrance test, Punjab Govt, had issued notification to the effect that Ferozepur shall be treated as border area for the purpose of all admissions and accordingly circular was issued by the University Annexure R-1. Necessary corrigendum was issued in the newspaper. Copy of the notice issued by the University in this regard is Annexure It-2. On the basis of the said circular and no-lice, she (respondent No, 4) received communication dated 19.7.2000 from the University in which it was mentioned that she shall be considered under the border area category. The said communication is Annexure R-3. She was a better candidate vis-a-vis the petitioner. Both of them were border area candidates. She got preferential treatment in the matter of admission over the petitioner in view of her better merit.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned for respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and perused the record.

7. In the prospectus 2000-2001 issued by Department of Computer Sciences and Engineering. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amristar, it is laid down under the heading reservation policy that in the University Teaching Departments 03% seats shall be reserved for Border Area candidates and the explanation to the said policy under head "D" reads as under :-"D. A candidate shall be eligible for admission under this category only if he/she is from a town/village within the belt of 10 miles from the international border and has studied for atleast five years there and has passed public examination (Matric or Higher Secondary Part-I) from a school located in Border town/village (excluding the towns Ferozepur. Gurdaspur). Two certificates - one from the DC/GA to DC of the District or SDO (Civil)/SDM with the town/village being within 10 miles limits from the international border, and another from the Headmaster/Principal of the Institution with details of exact date of joining and leaving the school/college must be produced along with the application form."

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the prospectus issued, a candidate belonging to Ferozepur, Gurdaspur had been expressly excluded from being taken as a border area candidate and if that was so, he could not claim reservation as border area candidate. For border area candidates, 03% seats were reserved. It was submitted that prospectus has a binding force. It has the force of law and it is not open to alteration. In support of this submission, our attention was drawn to Full Bench judgment reported in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. The State of Punjab 1996(4) SLR 673, where the Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for admission to a course has the force of law and it has not open to alteration. It was submitted that in Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University 1994(4) RSJ 289 : 1994(4) SCT 766, another Full Bench of this Court took the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a course has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the entrance examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of instructions given in the prospectus, having the force in law. Our attention was invited to para 17 of the judgment delivered by a Full Bench of this Court in Rahut Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jullundur and others 1997(3) RSJ 475 : 1997(3) SCT 526, where it was observed holding that "validity or otherwise of the information brochure and its binding nature has to be examined by the generality of cases it covers and not by the inconvenience or resultant prejudice that may be caused to persons who could not strictly adhere to its terms". In R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat and Others Vs. Ajit Mills Limited and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that "a law has to be adjudged for its constitutionality by the generality of cases it covers, not by the freaks and exceptions it martyrs". It was submitted relying upon these observations that whatever is contained in the prospectus/information brochure, that could not be altered to suit a particular candidate or candidates. Prospectus or information brochure issued originally had to be adhered to.

9. Our attention was drawn to Indu Gupta v. Director of Sports, Punjab, 1994(4) SCT 113, where it was held that the terms and conditions of brochure where they used peremptory language cannot be held to be merely declaratory. They have to be and must necessarily to be treated as mandatory. Their compliance would be essential otherwise basic principle of fairness in highly competitive entrance examination would stand frustrated. Vesting of discretion in an individual in such matters, to waive or dilute the stipulated conditions of brochure would per se introduce the element of discrimination, arbitrariness and unfairness. Such unrestricted discretion in contravention to terms of brochure would decimate the very intent behind the terms and conditions of brochure, more particularly, where cut off date itself has been provided in the brochure. Brochure has the force of law. Submission of applications complete in all respects is a sine qua non to the valid acceptance and consideration of an application for allotment of seats in accordance with terms prescribed in the brochure.

10. In Mukta Bansal v. State of Punjab and another, 1997(4) RSJ 796, it was held as follows :-

"It is also equally a settled principle of law that the eligibility of the candidate has to be considered at the time and date meant for submission of application forms. It is also not disputed that the application or the petitioner was not complete by 25.6.1997, the last date for admission of forms. This is also not disputed that in absence of such a certificate the petitioner would not be eligible for claiming a seat in the sports category. The very foundation of the claim is based upon gradation certificate which admittedly was not submitted on the aforesaid date. The respondents obviously could not have considered the petitioner as eligible, if his application was not complete in all respects and was not accompanied with the gradation certificate as on 25.6.1997. In this regard reference can also be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another, 1997(4) SCT 123 .

11. In Rajiv Kapoor & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2000(3) SC 635 : 2000(2) SCT 514, the Hon''ble Supreme Court laid down "that the prospectus as well as the orders of the Government in our view have to be construed in such a manner that the inter se merits of the service candidates are properly assessed on the basis of their credentials and performance in service and not merely of theoretical knowledge of the subject as in the cases of non-service candidates belonging to other categories. The High Court committed a serious error in this regard which vitiates its judgment and the same is accordingly set aside. The merits of the HCMS candidates are required to be adjudged in terms of the criteria contained in the Government orders noticed above and the selections can be made for admission against the reserved scats, as per the determination of merit by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. High Court fell into serious error holding that selection admission has to be made only in terms of the stipulations in the prospectus."

12. In 2000(3) SC 635, the petitioners before the High Court claimed that as per the norms and criteria proclaimed in the prospectus issued by the Medical College in question, selection for admission could be made only on the basis of marks obtained by a candidate in the entrance examination held for the purpose. But the contesting respondents, some of whom are the appellants before this Court as well as the State of Haryana contended that the marks obtained in the entrance examination only entitled them to be called for interview, being only a qualifying test rendering the candidates eligible for admission and that the final selection of the HCMS candidates against the reserved seats was required to be made by the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose on the basis of the specific criteria stipulated by the Government from time to time, based on the academic career, experience, rural service, annual confidential reports and marks obtained at the interview. The claim of the writ petitioners before the High Court found favour with the Division Bench of the High Court, which allowing their writ petition directed the cancellation of the admission given to contesting respondents before the High Court and directed selections of HCMS candidates for admission to P.O. courses to be made only on the basis of merit, as per the marks obtained in the written entrance examination and to admit the selectees within the stipulated time. In coming to such a conclusion the High Court appears to have been influenced by the fact that the prospectus, once issued had the force of law and the Government had no right to issue any centra-instructions in the matter. It was found that the orders of the Government dated 21.5.1997 issued in restatement of the pre-existing criteria stipulated by the Government had the consequence of upsetting the entire criteria for selection of HCMS candidates. Consequently, C.W.P. Nos. 8158, 8259 and 8334 of 1997 filed by the respondents 4 to 8 in these appeals were allowed by the High Court.

13. As regards Amar Deep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab etc., 1996(4) SLR 673, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that "on carefully going through that judgment, we find that the Full Bench did not doubt the competency or authority of the Government to stipulate procedure for admission relating to courses in professional colleges, particularly in respecl of reserved category of seats, but on the other hand, it specifically deprecated the decision to do away with the requirement of minimum marks criteria in respect of seats reserved for sports category and that too by passing orders after the examinations were held under a scheme notified in the Prospectus. As a matter of fact the Full Bench, ultimately directed, in that case, that selections for admissions be finalised in the light of the criteria specified in the Government orders already in force and the Prospectus, after ignoring the offending notification introducing a change at a later stage.

14. In Rajiv Kapoor and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , in the Prospectus issued by the Medical College, select ion for admission could be made only on the basis of marks obtained by a candidate in the entrance examination held for the purpose. There was no provision in so far as HCMS candidates are concerned in the prospectus that apart from the marks obtained by them in the entrance test, their merit for admission would be worked out after taking into account their academic career, experience, rural service, annual confidential reports and the marks obtained at the interview, though there were government orders to this effect issued from time to time. Hon''ble Supreme Court held that admission to Post Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in Medical College shall be made on the basis of prospectus as well as the Orders of the Government so that their inter se merits arc properly assessed on the basis of their credentials and performance in service and not merely on theoretical knowledge of the subject as in the case of non-service candidates belonging to the other categories.

15. Corrigendum was thus justifiably issued with a view to provide consideration to the candidates belonging to other areas which are situated within 10 miles of international borders. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Kamal Bhatia & others v. State of Punjab & others, CWP No. 16765 of 1999 decided on September 19, 2000, by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon''ble K.S. Kumaran and N.K. Sud, JJ. in support of his submission that prospectus has the force of law and whatever is laid down in the prospectus, that cannot be changed afterwards. In CWP No. 16765 of 1999, Kamal Bhatia and others were students of various engineering colleges of Punjab who had been admitted to 2nd/3rd semester of Bachelor of Engg./Tech no logy course under the Lateral Entry Engineering Test, 1999 (in short "LEET-99") conducted by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar on 18.7.1999. They felt aggrieved by the notice issued by the University in The Tribune dated 12.8.1999 notifying that as per the fee structure as revised by the Punjab Government, they were required to pay the same fee and other charges as was being charged from the candidates seeking admission to 1st year B.E./B.Tech. 1999-2000. The Punjab Govt. under the directions of Ministry of Human Resource Development and All India Council for Technical Education had framed a scheme in 1994 whereby Diploma holders were to be granted admission directly into the second year or 3rd semester of B.E./B.Tech. course. For this purpose, a separate entrance test was introduced which was known as LBET i.e. Lateral Entry Engineering Test. Fee structure of students admitted direct to the second year of the degree course through LEET was maintained at par with other second year students who had been admitted to the degree course in the first year in the previous year. This practice had been regularly followed upto 1998. In the Information-cum-Admission Brochure issued for LEET-99 by the University, this parity had been maintained. Hon''ble Bench held that the action of the Government in charging a higher fee structure from the students admitted through LEET-99 was totally discriminatory and unfair vis-a-vis those students who had been ad-milted in the degree course direct in the previous year because these two sets of students are getting the same service and should not be charged different fee. It was pointed out to the Bench that students admitted through LEET-99 had to pay Rs. 68950/- as tuition fee while another student of the same class had to pay a sum of Rs. 36885/- simply because he had joined the first year degree course in the year 1998. Hon''ble Bench held that the same fee has to be charged from every student of the second year class of B.E./B.Tech. whether he got admission through LEET-99 in the second year or he had sought admission in the year 1998 direct to B.E./B.Tech. as both are being taught by the same professors and the same course of study. Hon''ble Division Bench held that the revision of fee structure of LEET-99 students through notice dated 12.8.1999 was impermissible on the principle of equality and also because earlier from the year 1994, the fee structure of LEET students was the same as that of the previous year of GET students i.e. students who were granted admission in first year of B.E. course after passing their 10+2 examination. The object and the purpose behind adoption of previous year fee structure was that both second year of CET students and first year of LEET students sit together in the same class and undergo the same examination.

16. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to draw support from the judgments (supra) are not attracted so far as the facts of this case are concerned. In this case, in the prospectus originally issued, Ferozepur and Gurdaspur had been excluded from being taken as border area towns and as such candidates belonging to Ferozepur and Gurdaspur could not claim reservation as border area candidates. General and the reserved category candidates except belonging to the border area were called for interview on 12.7.2000. The reserved category candidates belonging to the border area were asked to appear for interview on 27.7.2000. This was done in view of the fact that the Registrar of the Guru Nanak Dev University issued office circular dated 4.7.2000 notifying that Ferozepur Cantt. and Ferozepur City are to be considered as border areas. This was done as there had been numerous representations from the candidates belonging to Ferozepur City/Cantt. that their town was also within 10 miles from international border and if they fulfilled the other conditions for being considered in the border area category, they should also be considered. It goes without saying that Fazilka, Jallalabad, Mamdot, Ferozepur Cantt., and Ferozepur City are border towns/cities as they fall within 10 miles belt of the international border. There is a notification to this effect appearing in the Punjab Govt. gazette in the year 1970. It was with a view to redress the discrimination being faced by the candidates belonging to Ferozepur City/Cantt. who are also border area candidates that corrigendum was issued though news item appearing in the issue of Hindustan Times dated 21.7.2000. Fact that candidates belonging to Ferozepur City/Cantt. can submit his/her claim under this category till 24.7.2000 was also given wide publicity and was published in Hindustan Times of the issue dated 21.7.2000. Reserved category belonging to the border area candidates were asked to appear for interview on 27.7.2000. This was done in view of the fact that the office circular dated 4.7.2000 was circulated on 4.7.2000 which was not contained in the prospectus issued for this examination. Pooja Chugh had appeared at the entrance test. Shailja Bajaj had also appeared at the entrance test. Pooja Chugh had indicated that she was a border area candidate belonging to Fazilka. Shailja Bajaj could not indicate that she was also a border area candidate belonging to Ferozepur because in the prospectus originally issued, Ferozepur and Gurdaspur had been excluded from being taken as border areas. Before the counselling took place, corrigendum was added to the prospectus. It was provided that Ferozepur City/Cantt. was also a border area falling within 10 miles belt of the international border and as such candidates belonging to Ferozepur City/Cantt. could also claim to be considered as border area candidates provided they furnished the requisite certificates. Shailja Bajaj came to be considered as border area candidate in view of the corrigendum. She furnished requisite certificates so that she could be considered eligible in the border area category. Merit of Shailja Bajaj was higher vis-a-vis Pooja Chugh''s. Both of them were border area candidates entitled to be considered for admission under the reserved category namely border area category. As Shailja Bajaj''s merit was superior to that of Pooja Chugh, Shailja Bajaj was given admission and rightly so. There is no equity in favour of Pooja Chugh so that we could declare the admission of Shailja Bajaj as illegal. Before the counselling took place, corrigendum could well have been issued. Through corrigendum only a stark fact was acknowledged that Ferozepur City/Cantt. is border area.

In view of what has been said above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

17. Petition dismissed.