JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The case relates to admission to the Bridge
Course conducted by Respondent No. 4, namely, YMCA
Institute of Engineering (hereinafter to be called as
‘YMCA Institute’ for short), after being approved by
Respondent No. 2 i.e. All Indian Council for
Technical Education (hereinafter to be called as
‘AICTE’ for short). Two sets of students are staking
their claims for admission to this course; one group
consists of those students who passed the Post Diploma
Course/Advance Diploma Course in the years 1995-96 and
1996-97 (hereinafter to be called as ‘first category’
for short) and the other group represents those
students who passed their Post Graduate Diploma Course
in the academic year prior to 1995-96 (hereinafter to
be referred to as ‘second category’). The chequered
history of these cases is stated in substantial details
by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment
dated 30.10.2001 and, therefore, it would not be
necessary to repeat the same. However, the facts
essential for disposal of the present appeal are
necessarily to be stated. It would be prudent to refer
to these facts first so that the controversy is
appreciated in its proper perspective.
2. Till the year 1995-96 YMCA Institute was
offering Post Diploma Course in Engineering in various
disciplines such as Electrical, Computer, Mechanical
etc. After the promulgation of All India Technical
Education Act, the recognition by AICTE under this
enactment for continuing or starting in such a course
became imperative. In the year 1995-96 AICTE accorded
approval to YMCA Institute for this course which was
renamed as Advance Diploma Course in place of Post
Diploma Course known earlier subject to the conditions
that:
A. the entry level be raised from 11th to
12th,
B. the duration of the course shall be four
years after 12th class examination and
C. the Institute should carry out
modifications by adding tonics in the course contents
of various courses as suggested.
3. In the year 1997-98 the Government of Haryana
upgraded the course of B.Tech Programme. Students
studying Advance Diploma Course made representation for
approving of a Bridge Course for those students who had
successfully completed Advance Diploma Course to enable
them to have a degree. As AICTE did not accede to
their representation, CWP. No. 7364/99 was filed in this
Court. It was allowed by judgment dated 20.9.2000
issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing AICTE to accord
approval for having the Bridge Course for students who
had studied and were studying Advance Diploma Course in
the YMCA Institute. This was Writ Petition filed by
102 students of YMCA Institute who had passed out
Advance Diploma Course after being admitted to the
course in the year 1996-97 i.e. those belonging to
first category.
4. After this writ petition was decided, AICTE by
letters dated 16.4.2001 and 28.8.2001 informed the YMCA
Institute that it had approved to conduct of one year
full Bridge Course leading to the degree in
Engineering. The Bridge Course was approved with an
intake of 225 students subject to certain conditions.
It may be mentioned that AICTE has satisfied itself
that YMCA Institute fulfillled these conditions. This
is the result of inspection done by the inspection team
which has visited the Institute on 5.9.2001 and,
therefore, approved the infrastructure available
conducting the Bridge Course with intake of 225
students.
5. Since there was delay in implementation of the
judgment dated 20.9.2000, CM. 8458/2001 was filed in
CW. 7364/1999 by the petitioners in that writ petition.
At this stage it may be mentioned that certain other
students also filed CWP. No. 2861/2001 seeking a prayer
that benefit of judgment dated 20.9.2000 passed in
CW. No. 7364/99 be extended to them. This petition and
CMP. 8458/2001 were disposed of by order dated
11.9.2001 giving the direction to give admission to all
the petitioners of CW. No. 7364/99 and CW. No. 2861/2001 in
the first instance and fill up the remaining seats from
among the students who had passed 10+2 examination with
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics strictly in
accordance with merits of the applicants. It would be
pertinent to note here that CWP. No. 2861/2001 was filed
by four petitioners who were the students who had
passed their course prior to the academic year 1995-96
and were awarded Post Diploma Course in Engineering
i.e. they belong to second category.
6. The effect of aforesaid orders was to give
admission to the petitioners in CWP. No. 7364/99 and
CWP. No. 2861/2001 (106 students in all) and thereafter
to fill the remaining seats strictly on merits.
7. For filling up the remaining seats a question
arose, viz, whether the first category students only
were to be considered or students for both the
categories were to be considered in accordance with
merits. The appellants herein who belong to first
category filed CW. 6184/2001 wherein they claim that
they are at par with the students in CWP. No. 7364/99
and, therefore, they should also be given admission to
the Bridge Course as a matter of right. On the other
hand students belonging to second category filed a
batch of writ petitions contending that they belong to
same class and all students who had passed out either
Post Diploma Course in Engineering i.e. prior to
1995-96 or Advance Diploma Course in Engineering i.e.
after 1996-97 be admitted to the course strictly in
accordance with merits.
8. All these writ petitions came up for
consideration before the learned Single Judge who
passed impugned judgment dated 30.10.2001. The learned
Single Judge discussed the nature of two diplomas at
great length and came to the conclusion that there was
no difference between the two diplomas, namely, Post
Diploma Course and Advance Diploma Course. As per the
opinion of the learned Single Judge the only change
made after the course was to rename it as Advance
Diploma and entry level was raised from Class 11 to
Class 12 +. Learned Single Judge further held that as
most of the students who had taken admission in the
Post Diploma Course prior to academic year 1995-96 had
passed their class 12 before taking admission in the
said course, the students of second category could not
be differentiated. This conclusion finds expression in
the following portion of the impugned judgment:
“A perusal of all the aforesaid orders
and the correspondence exchanged between
the Government of Haryana and the AICTE
lead to only one conclusion that the
bridge course was open to all students
who had either passed their post-diploma
course in engineering or the advance
diploma course in engineering provided
they were admitted in these course after
clearing 10+2 examination conducted by
the recognised board of education. There
cannot, therefore, be any discrimination
between students who had passed
post-diploma or the advance diploma
course since they have passed similar
examination with same syllabi and were
admitted to these course after their
having passed 10+2 examination with
Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. I,
therefore, do not see any reason as to
why the students who had passed their
post-diploma course in engineering after
being validly admitted to the course
prior to the academic year 1995-96 should
be denied admission in the bridge course
leading to the grant of a B.Tech degree
in engineering as the initial letter of
19th May, 1999 written by the Government
of Haryana to the All India Council for
Technical Education clearly states that
the bridge course was meant for the
students of both the post diploma course
as well as the advance diploma course”.
9. The impugned judgment also refers to the
circumstances under which orders were passed in the
earlier writ petitions, namely, CWP. No. 7346/99 and
CWP. No. 2861/2001 whereby students of both the
categories were directed to be admitted to the Bridge
Course. It also noted that fact that the earlier orders
dated 28.5.2001 and 11.9.2001 had not been challenged
by any party and had attained finality. This
discussion to this effect runs thus:
“Since the only condition of the AICTE
for admission to the bridge course was
that the students who had cleared their
post-diploma course in engineering must
have cleared their 10+2 examination
before being admitted to the post-diploma
course, the court in its judgment dated
28.5.2001 directed the respondents to
admit the petitioners in CWP. No. 2861/2001
in the bridge course approved by AICTE for
the grant of degree in engineering. This
direction was given because the
petitioners in that petition had passed
10+2 examination before being admitted in
the post-diploma course in engineering.
It was in the light of the above facts
that this Court in its order passed on
11.9.2001 on an application being CM
No. 7203/2001 filed in CWP. No. 7364/99, had
directed the institute to start the
course w.e.f. 15th October, 2001 and give
admission to all the petitioners of CWP
No. 7364/1999 and 2861/2001 in the first
instance. The Court had further directed
that the remaining seats available with
the Institute will be filled up by the
eligible candidates from amongst the
students who had passed minimum 10+2
examination with Physics, Chemistry and
Mathematics and admission will be done
strictly in accordance with merits of the
applicants who might apply for being
admitted to the course. Neither the
order dated 28th May, 2001 nor the order
dated 11th September, 2001 have been
challenged by any party and they have
thus become final”.
10. After recording the aforesaid opinion the
petition was disposed of with the following direction:
“In view of the foregoing discussion, I
direct the respondents to admit all the
eligible candidates who had passed their
post-diploma course or the advance
diploma course in engineering after being
admitted to the courses after passing
minimum 10+2 examination with Physics,
Chemistry and Mathematics, strictly in
accordance with the merits of the
applicants who have applied for being
admitted to the course. The candidates
who may be left out and are not admitted
to the course because of their being low
in merits will be eligible for taking
admission in the bridge course in the
academic year 2002-2003. With these
observations, the petition stands
disposed of”.
11. The position that emerges from the aforesaid
discussion can be summarised in the following manner:
1. The AICTE has accorded permission to YMCA
Institute for Bridge Course for the grant of degree in
Engineering in respect of those students who had passed
10+2 Examination and thereafter done Post Diploma
Course or Advance Diploma Course from YMCA Institute.
2. The Bridge Course was approved with an
intake of 225 students.
3. By Order dated 11.9.2001 direction was
given, while disposing of CM. 8458/2001 filed in
CW. 7364/1999 and CW. 2861/2001, to admit all the
petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions in the
first instance i.e. give admission to 106 students on
preferential basis.
4. Remaining seats were directed to be filled
strictly in accordance with merits.
5. As per the impugned judgment rendered on
30.10.2001 these remaining seats were to be filled
strictly in accordance with merits of the applicants
belonging to both the categories.
6. The candidates who may be left out and not
admitted because of their being low in merit would be
eligible for taking admission in the Bridge Course in
the academic year 2002-2003.
12. The appellants herein who were the petitioners
in CWP. No. 6184/2001 and belong to first category wanted
preferential treatment in the same manner in which the
petitioners in CWP. No. 7364/99 were given benefit.
Therefore, they were not satisfied with the impugned
judgment as per which they had to compete with the
students belonging to second category and admissions
were to be given on the basis of inter-se merits of
these students. Therefore, they have filed the present
appeal challenging the impugned judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
13. Certain developments which have taken place
after the filing of the present appeal would now be
noticed as they have bearing on the disposal of this
appeal. This appeal came up for hearing on 6.11.2001
when notice to show cause why appeal be not admitted
was issued to the respondents, returnable on 5.12.2001.
In CM. 1479/2001 filed by the appellants herein
direction was issued to the effect that 13 seats of the
Bridge Course in the respective discipline of the
appellant be not filled up by YMCA Institute till the
next date of hearing. This order was served upon YMCA
Institute i.e. Respondent No. 4 on the same date when
counselling was being done and students were admitted.
There is some dispute about the timing of the service
of the communication of the order and to this effect we
shall address at the appropriate stage. What is
required to be mentioned at this stage in that the YMCA
Institute had completed the admission process.
However, 13 students who were admitted and fee taken
were not allowed to join the course because of the
aforesaid interim order. These 13 students have filed
intervention application in this appeal seeking to
intervene in this case and opposing the present appeal
filed by the appellants and submitting that they should
be allowed to joint the course on the basis of admission
rightfully granted to them.
14. Mr. N.K. Kaul, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants pointed out that the learned Single Judge in
his impugned judgment formulated the point involved at
Page-2 thereof by observing that the question to be
decided was as to whether the admission in the Bridge
Course was open only to those students who belong to
first category and not open to those who belong to
second category. According to Mr. Kaul, learned Single
judge fell in error by formulating this question and
thereafter addressing this question in the impugned
judgment. It is because the prayer made by the
appellants in the Writ Petition filled by them as to
the effect that since they were similarly situated as
the writ petitioners in the CWP. No. 7364/99, the
appellants were also entitled to the same benefit which
was given to them by orders dated 20.9.2000. In other
words it was submitted that they were also entitled to
the same preferential treatment and were entitled to
the admission in the same manner in which 102
petitioners in W.P. No. 7364/99 were given as they belong
to the same category. The learned counsel further
referred to various communications exchanged between
AICTE and the Institute as well as Haryana University
as per which the Bridge Course was meant only for the
students belonging to ‘first category’ i.e. for
batches of 1995-96 and 1996-97 and, therefore, for all
these students there had to be an automatic admission.
It was sought to be suggested that if the matter is
looked into from this angle, all the students belonging
to first category should have got automatic admission
and only balance seats that remained unfilled should
have gone to the students belonging to second category
as per their ranking in the merit. It was submitted
that by excluding the appellants although belonging to
same category as petitioners in CW. 7364/99 a class
within class was sought to be treated which was clearly
discriminatory and impermissible.
15. In the alternative, it was submitted that even
if all the appellants were to be accommodated the
respondents were supposed to create only three more
seats and if respondents adopt this course, all the
persons who were given admission and have not joined
because of the stay order and have filed impleadment
applications as well as all the appellants would be
adjusted.
16. Challenging the aforesaid stand taken by
learned counsel for the appellants it was submitted on
behalf of YMCA Institute that the appellants were
making false claims by contending that there were two
batches who had studied Advance Diploma Course i.e.
1995-96 and 1996-97. In fact there was only one batch
who studied the Advance Diploma Course i.e. 1996-97
and the appellants who did Diploma Course in the year
1995-96 were in fact fully aware that they were the
students of Post Diploma Course and had been making
false statement that they had completed Advance Diploma
Course. Therefore, they could not equate themselves
with 1996-97 batch and the appellants also could not be
the beneficiary of the judgment in CW. 7364/99 which
related to the students of 1996-97 batch only. It was
submitted that the appellants became entitled to Bridge
Course in view of judgment dated 30.10.2001 as per
which all the eligible candidates who had passed their
Post Diploma Course or Advance Diploma Course in
Engineering after being admitted to the course after
possessing minimum 10+2 qualification with Physics,
Chemistry and Mathematics strictly in accordance with
merits of the applicants who had applied for admission
of this course. But for this impugned judgment dated
30.10.2001 the appellants were not entitled to any
benefit. Therefore, they had no right to challenge
this judgment. It was also submitted that the
appellants were found to be extremely low in the merit
except two and due to this reason they could not be
admitted to the Bridge Course.
17. Mr. Sandip Srivastava, Mr. Gagan Gupta,
Mr. M.M. Kalra and Mr. Pramod Ahuja, Advocates made
submissions on behalf of intervenors and they also
contested the claim for the appellants herein. Their
contention was that both the categories of students
formed same class as similarly situated and, therefore,
the direction of the learned Single Judge in giving
admission to them strictly on merit was perfectly
justified. It was further submitted that these
intervenors were much higher in merit than the
appellants and, therefore, they had prior right in
getting the admission and accordingly were rightly
admitted by the YMCA Institute. In fact the
applicants/intervenors in CMs. 1504-05/2001 belong to
1996-97 batch (i.e. the first category) and,
therefore, in any case they had much better claim than
the appellants when their position in merit list was
also superior to that of the appellants. Likewise
applicants in CM. 1607/2001 belong to 1995-96 batch like
the appellants but were given the admission because of
their higher merit. Their admission, therefore, could
not be denied on any reckoning.
18. After considering the respective submissions,
we are of the opinion that the directions given in the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge deserve
to be upheld. There is no denial of the fact that the
petitioners in CW. 7364/99 belonged to 1996-97 batch.
It is on their petition who had done Advance Diploma
Course that the direction was given to start the Bridge
Course. Admittedly the appellants had done Post
Diploma Course. Even if this Post Diploma Course was
same as Advance Diploma Course, then as far as the
appellants are concerned they cannot say that their
case was on a better footing than the case of those
students who had done this Course prior to 1995-96.
The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the
only condition of AICTE for admission to the Bridge
Course that the students who had cleared their Post
Diploma Course in Engineering must have cleared their
10+2 examination before being admitted to the Post
Diploma Course. Therefore, when the students belonging
to second category are also the students of 10+2 and
done Post Diploma Course they stand on same footing and
no discrimination can be meted out by excluding second
category students from admission to Bridge Course and
confining the same only to the first category of
students.
19. Insofar as giving the preferential treatment
to the petitioners in CW. 7364/99 and CW. 2861/2001 is
concerned, order to that effect was passed on
20.9.2000. This order was not challenged by any
person. This order became final. Therefore, when the
learned Single Judge was deciding the writ petition
filed by the appellants herein which has lead to passing
of the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge had to
proceed on the basis that order of 20.9.2000 had become
final. As per this order the petitioners in CW. 7364/99
as well as CW. 2861/2001 were to be given admission in
the first instance and the remaining seats were to be
filled up among the eligible students strictly in
accordance with merit of the applicants. Therefore,
the only question which fell for determination was
regarding the parity between the two categories of
students. The learned Single Judge rightly formulated
this question and focussed his attention to the same.
When the learned Single Judge found and correctly so
that students of both the categories belong to same
class, the direction was rightly given in the impugned
judgment to the effect that the applicants from both
categories who had applied for the admission will have
to be admitted and while giving them admission, the
criteria as already laid down by order dated 20.9.2000
in earlier writ petitions had to be applied, namely,
it was to be done strictly in accordance with merits.
If the writ of the appellants herein was to be allowed,
it would have the effect of disturbing the order dated
20.9.2000 which had otherwise become final. Therefore,
we do not find any infirmity in the order of learned
Single Judge which is hereby upheld. Resultantly 13
persons who were given admission on the implementation
of the judgment of the learned Single Judge have a
right to join the course and attend the classes as
students properly admitted to the said course. Their
intervention applications are accordingly allowed.
20. At this stage we may examine alternate
conditions of the learned counsel for the appellants.
By giving preferential treatment to the students who
were the petitioners in CW. 7364/99 and CW. 2861/2001,
some students have been given preferential treatment
and got automatic admission although they may be
otherwise below in the merit than the appellants
herein. Position would have been different had all the
225 seats been filled strictly in accordance with
merit. That has not happened. There were 106 (102+4)
petitioners in CW. 7364/99 and CW. 2861/2001 who became
entitled to automatic admission by virtue of order
dated 20.9.2000. In the first counselling for them, 99
students approached and were given admission. In the
second counselling which was done strictly according to
merit, 118 students are admitted. This include 13
students who are the intervenors. In this way 217
seats have been filled leaving a balance of 8 seats.
Out of 13 appellants to appellants have been admitted
on the basis of their merit. This leaves 11 appellants
and 8 vacant seats. Therefore, if all the appellants
are to be accommodated, 3 more seats are to be created.
When the matter was argued on 7.12.2001 we had put it
to counsel for YMCA Institute as well as AICTE as to
whether they would be able to accommodate these
students. This information was sought without
straining their resources and in the peculiar facts of
this case. The learned counsel for YMCA Institute
replied in the affirmative. Since the recognition from
AICTE is also required, learned counsel for AICTE
Mr. C. Badrinath Babu submitted that he would be able to
inform about this aspect after having instructions from
AICTE on 11.12.2001. Learned counsel on 11.12.2001
informed the court that AICTE would be able to give the
approval to YMCA Institute by increasing the three
seats provided that, no more students are admitted.
Since these appellants had filed Writ Petition
immediately after the orders of 20.9.2000 and,
therefore, were alive of their rights for which they
approached the Court, it was considered appropriate and
equitable if these appellants are also accommodated for
which only three seats are to be created. After all
the four students who were petitioners in CW. 2861/2001
and belong to second category got their admission and
preferential right only because they had approached
this court by filling CW. 2861/2001. No other person has
come to this court. By giving admission to these three
persons, more so when AICTE as well as YMCA Institute
state that these three seats can be created and
approved, it would be equitable to adjust all these 11
appellants. We order accordingly directing the YMCA
Institute to admit these 11 appellants as well.
21. We make it clear that since the course has
already started and with admission to these appellants
as well as intervenors all seats stand filled and there
is no other person to lay claim, no other student would
now be given any admission. As per the direction
contained in the impugned judgment those students who
were left out and could not be accommodated shall be
eligible for taking admission in the Bridge Course in
the year 2002-2003. In the peculiar case of such a
nature, the parties who have not come to the Court
would not be entitled to the benefit of the judgment as
held by Supreme Court in the case of Bhoop Sing v.
Union of India and Ors. and in the
case reported in 1995 SCC (L&S) 1140. We also make it
clear that direction given to admit the appellants is
in the peculiar facts of this case and would not act as
precedent.
22. As already mentioned above suo moto show cause
notice was issued to the Director, YMCA Institute for
initiating contempt of court proceedings. Respondent
No. 4 has, in answer to this show cause notice,
submitted his explanation. From this explanation, we
are satisfied that the Director or for the matter YMCA
authorities had not violated the injunction order dated
6.11.2001 willfully or contumaciously. We accordingly
drop these proceedings.
23. With the aforesaid observations, this appeal
and all miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.