ORDER
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Buta Singh, petitioner, prays that admission of Ranian Kumar-respondent No. 4 be quashed in 3 years Diploma Course un Electrical Engineering in Central Polytechnic, Punjab Secior 26, Chandigarh and he be granted admission to the said course.
2. There is not much dispute to the facts of this writ petition. The petitioner, who is a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category, passed his Matriculation examination from S.N. Senior Secondary School, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh in June, 1999. The respondent Board conducted a Joint Entrance Test for admission to certain technical Diploma Courses for various institutions in the State of Punjab and the polytechnic Colleges located in U.T. Chandigarh. As per the prospectus, 60% seats out of total seats in U.T. Chandigarh are reserved for the students, who passed their Matriculation examination from the institutions situated in Chandigarh or belonging to Chandigarh. The result of the Joint Entrance Test was declared on 9.6.1999. The petitioner secured 460 marks with rank 4051, whereas the respondent No. 4 secured 457 marks. The petitioner claims to have appeared for counselling before the Central Administrative Committee constituted by the respondent- Board. His certificates were checked
and he signed the papers but he has been incorrectly denied (admission) to the Electrical Engineering course, he has been granted admission to Mechanical Engineering course, while the respondent No. 4, being lower in merit than the petitioner, ought to have been admilled to Mechanical Engineering course in place of the petitioner. Having failed to get any relief at the hands of the respondents, despite representation, the petitioner filed the present petition.
3. Upon notice, the respondents filed detailed replies. It has been stated that the petitioner did not mark his presence and as such he was not treated to be present on the date of counselling, hence no fault can be found with the respondents’ action in granting admission to the respondent No. 4 to the said course.
4. It is clear from the above narrated facts that there is not much controversy in the present case including to the fact that the petitioner had attained higher marks than the respondent No. 4. The petitioner, in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, has made the following averments :-
That the respondent No. 2 Board constituted Central Admission Committees for granting admission to the students in various courses. The petitioner appeared before the Central Admission Committee forcounsellingon 16.7.1999 to get admission in respondent No. 3 College. The petitioner appeared before the Central Admission Committee at 8.30 A.M. The Central Admission Committee invited the candidates present there according to their marks obtained in the JET. At first the students who got 600 marks, then who got above 550 marks and then the candidate who got 500 marks and the candidates who got 400 marks. On the turn of the petitioner he along with other students was given Admit Card to fill in. The petitioner filled in the Admit Card. The employee concerned checked all the original certificates of the petitioner and got his signatures in the register. Thereafter again, an official checked the certificates of the petitioner and asked him to go to the Record Keeper where the Record Keeper returned back the application form of the petitioner and got his signatures. He asked the students present there to stand in the queue. All the students present there stood in the queue and when the petitioner reached at the door of admission hall, where the Central Admission Committee was giving admission, the person sitting on the gate stopped the petitioner from going in. Upon enquiries, the petitioner was told that he has been shown absent as per computer list. Upon further enquiries the computer operator admitted before the officials present there that the student is present but inadvertently due to his fault he was shown absent. All this situation was brought to the notice of the officers present there who asked the computer operator to mark the petitioner present ana sig on it. Accordingly, the computer operator marked the presence of the petitioner in the list and signed on it. Then the official sitting there
allowed the petitioner to go in before the Central Admission Committee where he was told that all the seats of Electronic, Electrical and Mechanical have been filled in. Upon further enquiries, the petitioner came to know that candidate who got 457 marks have been given admission in the diploma of Electrical. The petitioner immediately made representation to the respondent No. 2 who did not pay any heed. The copy of the representation along with its true translation is attached with the petition as Annexure P-4.
5. In the writ statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 2-Board, while making a reference to the terms and conditions of the brochure, it is stated that 15 to 20 candidates, in order to their merit, were called and all the said candidates were required to receive their slips and fill up the attendance slip and report to first table in the counselling home (hall ?), where the documents were checked and they were required to report on the next table, where lots were finalised for making them present in the computer room. The candidates were required to make their presence recorded with the Incharge of the Computer and then they could enter the counselling room. Thus the relevant part of the reply of respondent No. 2 is important to be referred at this stage, which is being reproduced as under :-
“Thereafter, after marking their presence in the computer and in the list the candidates are asked to stand in a queue as per the merit in the list in that particular lot and thereafter they go to the counselling room where they report to the person on duty who also has to assess a computer and should allot the seats as per the availability of seats and the choice of the candidates. Thereafter the candidates are to report to the Chairman of the Central Admission Committee for getting their signatures on the original attendance slip which now also reflects where the student is admitted. Thereafter the candidates deposit their fee and also original certificates.
In the case of the petitioner what appears to have happened is that though admittedly he was present in the counselling hall but he did not get his presence marked while preparing the computerised list and he was marked absent in the computer. It may be mentioned here that it was for this reason that since the petitioner was marked absent he had to then go and get his presence marked in the computer and thereafter when he came back he was considered and admitted in the seat available at that time.”
6. From the reply of the concerned respondent, it is clear that the petitioner was present and he has participated in different stages of the allotment of seats and was actually allotted the seat in Machanical Engineering but he, by an oversight, did not get his presence marked in the computer list and was consequently denied the seat in Electriciat Engineering for no fault attributable to him. The petitioner went for counselling with requisite documents in time. The case of the petitioner cannot be shut by Clause 12 of the brochure, as
admittedly he went in time and was present in the counselling and it is only that he missed the computerised queue which in no way could result in denying the allotment of the seat to the petitioner. He was entitled to for the same on the basis of his merit. In various judgments the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and High Court have undisputedly settled the law that the merit must prevail in consonance with the terms and conditions of the brochure, which is binding on the authorities as well as the candidates. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was having a higher merit than respondent No. 4 and was entitled to get admission to the course of his own preference. In normal course, the petitioner would have got admission to the course of Electrical Engineering.
7. During the course of arguments, it was also pointed out that one year of the course has already been concluded and as such it will not be just and fair to permit the petitioner to change his academic discipline from Mechanical Engineering to Electrical Engineering.
8. Apparently, there was some weight in the submission of the counsel for the respondents. But, however, learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that the course for all Engineering Diplomas in the 1 st year is identical and as such nobody would suffer any prejudice if the petitioner is granted relief, as prayed for. Learned counsel appearing for the Board was required to seek instructions from the Board in regard to the above controversy. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the Board placed a letter dated 16.2.2000 issued by the Board on record, the contents of which read as under :-
“Subject: Regarding common subjects of 1st and 2nd Semester.
Sir,
This is to inform you that 1st and 2nd semester subjects are common in the following trades :-
1. Civil Engg.
2. Electrical Engg.
3. Mechanical Engg.
Consequently the students of the above mentioned trades are allowed change of trade during the 3rd semester based on the performance in the 1st and 2nd Semester.”
9. From the bare perusal of the above letter, it is clear that neither the petitioner nor respondent No. 4 would suffer any prejudice and the seats in the courses of respective preferences of the students should be allotted strictly in accordance with the merits of the entrance test.
10. For the reasons aforestated, I have no hesitation in allowing this writ petition. Consequently, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to shift the 2nd year of his course to Electrical Engineering from Mechanical Engineering and swap Ihe position with respondent No. 4. In case a seat is lying vacant in the Electrical Engineering, in that event even respondent No. 4 should be permitted to continue his Electri-
cal Engineering course by the said respondent but not in preference to the petitioner.
11. The writ petition is allowed in the above extent with no order as to costs.
12. Petition allowed.