Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.


Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh Randhawa And Anr. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 1 August, 2000
Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 P H 107
Author: N Sodhi
Bench: N Sodhi, N Sud


JUDGMENT

N.K. Sodhi, J.

1. Petitioners have passed their 10+2 examination during the years 1999 and 2000 and being eligible they sat in the common entrance test conducted by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (for short the University) on 28-5-2000 for admission to First Year of Bachelor of Engineering/Technology/Architecture etc. courses in different institutions in the State of Punjab. They are sons of police officers who, claim to have won President’s medal and gallantry awards. Their grievance is that till last year the State of Punjab had been reserving seats in different educational institutions for the wards of Police Officers who had won gallantry awards but this year there is no such reservation. They have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing the respondents to make reservation for candidates like them who are wards of police officers who have won gallantry awards.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and find no merit in the writ petition. The University published the admission brochure for the common entrance test and also for admission to different institutions in which provisions had been made for the reservation of seats for different categories of persons but no reservation had been made for the wards of police officers holding gallantry awards. The petitioners sat in the entrance examination on the basis of this prospectus/brochure and since there was no reservation for their class of candidates they cannot any grievance. Moreover, no candidate belonging to any category can claim that reservation be made for his class of candidates or for his category of students when the State Government chooses not to make any such reservation. Faced with this situation, Shri Gupta placed reliance on a letter dated 18-7-2000 to contend that the State Government had taken a decision to reserve 2% seats for admission in Government Institutions forwards of winners of the President’s Police Medal for gallantry and, therefore, the petitioners be ordered to be considered for admission in that reserved category. We are afraid this contention too cannot be accepted. A perusal of this letter which is Annexure P-11 with the writ petition shows that a meeting was held on 13-7-2000 between the Chief Minister, Punjab and the Punjab Police Officers Association (Registered) in which the question of reservation of seats for persons like the petitioners was considered. This letter which is addressed by the Under Secretary Home to the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Technical Education and Industrial Training purports to state that the Chief Minister had issued Instructions for making such a reservation. Without going into the question whether this letter can be treated as communicating the decision of the State Government in regard to the reservation for this particular category, we are satisfied that this letter cannot govern the common entrance test held in May, 2000 and the admission to be made on the basis of that test. It is by now well settled that the terms and conditions contained in the prospectus issued for admission to different courses is ‘law’ and those terms and conditions are binding both on the students as also on the authorities conducting the test and granting admissions. The reservation, if any, could take effect only if the same had been provided for in the prospectus. This not having been done, the prospectus cannot be altered at this stage when students all over the State of Punjab including the petitioners have already taken the entrance test. The letter relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners could at the most govern the admissions and the entrance tests to be held after its issuance provided such a provision is made in the prospectus/admission brochure.

3. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

109 queries in 0.185 seconds.