JUDGMENT
R.L. Anand, J.
1. Ms Sukhwinder Kaur, petitioner, has filed the present writ petition under Aticles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the Panjab University respondent No. 1, Panjabi University, respondent No. 2, Guru Nanak Dev University, respondent No. 3 and Malwa Centre College of Education, respondent No. 4 and it has been prayed by the petitioner that a writ of certiorari be issued againsl the respondents quashing the reservation to the extent of 3% given in Prospectus under Clause 6.2, to the Teachers’ children, self and their spouse as this criteria is unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1998(1) R.S.J. 533 : 1997(1) SCT 824 (SC), Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology v. Slate of Punjab and another. The petitioner has further prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to admit the petitioner in B.Ed. course since she has cleared the entrance test and she belongs to Scheduled Caste (Balmiki community). It was also prayed that direction be also given to re-
spondent No. 4 to admit the petitioner in B.Ed. course in the college since 25% reservation have been provided in favour of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes for the colleges of Punjab as per the provisions of Prospectus.
2. The case sot up by the petitioner is that she belongs to Balmiki community which has been declared as a Scheduled Caste by the Government of Punjab under the Constitutional Scheduled, Caste Order, 1950. She was issued a Scheduled Caste certificate dated 7.3.2000. For the Session of 2000-2001. Panjab University Chandigarh, respondent No. 1, was authorised by the Chandigarh Administration and the Punjab Government to conduct entrance test for admission to B.Ed. course in the Colleges of Education affiliated to Punjab University, Chandigarh, Punjabi University, Patiala and Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar. The petitioner was fully eligible and applied for the entrance test. She also applied for reserved category of Scheduled Castes and 25% seats have been reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for the Colleges of Punjab. Moreover, the petitioner hails from rural area. Therefore, she is claiming that respondent No. 4 should admit her by providing reservation to the members of the Scheduled Castes to the extent of 25% of the total seats in the college.
3. The result of the petitioner was declared by rc-spondent No. 1 and the petitioner secured 77.25 marks out of 250 and her rank was 27624 in the ranking list of declaration of the results. The petitioner did her graduation from Punjabi University, Patiala in the subjects of English, Punjabi compulsory, History, Punjabi Literature and Public Administration and she gave her combination of History and Punjabi. 4500 seats were to be filled and 85% of the seats as per prospectus were reserved for U.T. Pool and 15% seats for general pool.
4. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is of two fold; firstly, that the reservation to the extent of 3% for the teachers and their wards under Rule 6.2 of the prospectus is unconstitutional and secondly respondent No. 4 has not applied the reservation rule and the petitioner is eligible to get the seat in the institution of respondent No. 4 on the basis of her reservation and also on the basis of rural candidate. With this broad background the petitioner has made a prayer for the grant of the relief as stated in the earlier portion of the judgment.
5. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. Written statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 i.e. Panjab University, Chandigarh. Certain preliminary objections were taken such as that the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the aforesaid criteria laid down under Rule 6.2 as she was fully aware at the lime of the filling of the form of entrance test about the said reservation rules. The petitioner sought admission in the B.Ed. course in the Scheduled Castes Category (Humanities Group) in the subject combination of History and Punjabi and this combination is only available in two colleges i.e.
GHC Khalsa College of Education, Gursar Sadhar and D.A.V. College of Education, Hoshiarpur and in the said combination the last candidate admitted in Scheduled Castes category secured 126 and 127.25 marks respectively whereas the petitioner only secured 77.25 marks. The petitioner has sought the admission in the college of respondent No. 4, where no seat is available in the subject combination of History and Punjabi. Even otherwise also, if the petitioner claims the admission in the combination of other subjects, such as Social Studies-Punjabi and Social Studies-English, under Scheduled Castes category, even then she is not entitled to the admission in the said subject combinations because the last candidate admitted in any college in the State of Punjab in these subject combinations, had secured in the Scheduled Castes category 120.75 marks and 118.25 marks as the petitioner has simply secured 77.25 marks and in this manner, there are about 4000 candidates who have higher merit than that of the petitioner in the Scheduled Castes category.
6. The stand taken up by respondent No. 1 further is that respondent No. 4 had informed to the University that seats were filled up on the basis of subject combinations and in rural seats of Humanities Group (Scheduled Castes category) out of 25 seats, 23 candidates were admitted and remaining two seals of the said category of Social Studies-Hindi Group could not be filled up due to non-availability of rural candidates and these two seats were given to the general category by transfer. Moreover, the petitioner did not attach the form “C” to show that she was a rural area candidate and the said from was necessary for a candidate who w anted lo get the seat in Malwa College as rural seat as per prospectus. With this short background, respondent No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Respondent No. 4 also filed separate written statement and its stand more or less is the same as ihat of respondent No. 1. According to this respondent, the petitioner opted for subject combination of History and Punjabi and this combination is not available in the college of respondent No. 4. Respondcn! No. 4 has also given a chart with regard to the distribution of the seats. The total number of seats with respondent No. 4 are 250. 70% are of rural area out of which 76 are for Science and 99 for Arts Group. 30% seats are for General category and it comes to 75.34 seats go to Science and 41 go to Arts. Out of 99 rural seats in the Humanity Group 25 go to Scheduled Castes, out of 41 General category of the Humanities 10 seats go to Scheduled Castes, out of 76 (Science group of rural) 19 go to Scheduled Castes and out of 34 General (Science Group) 8 go to Scheduled Castes. Thus, out of the total seats of 250, 62 seats in all go to the Scheduled Castes.
8. We are only concerned with the rural group in which 25 seats oul of 99, go to the Scheduled Castes at the ratio of 25%.
9. In short, the defence of respondent No. 4 is that this college is not imparting the education in the combination opted by the petitioner and moreover, the petitioner did not possess the rural certificate in Form
“C”.
10. The parties have also placed some documents on the record and they have mainly relied upon the prospectus issued by the Panjab University.
11. I have heard Shri Pawan Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the pelitioner, Shri Vikrant Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Shri G.S. Punia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case and after hearing the counsel for the parties. I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has not been able to make out any case for her benefit.
12. The case set up by the petitioner herself is that in the entrance test she secured 77.25 marks out of 250, and her rank was 27624 in the ranking list of declaration of results.
13. As per the prospectus, Regulation 6.2 appearing at page 12 of the prospectus 3% reservation has been prescribed for teachers’ children, self and spouse. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this kind of reservation has been declared bad by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1998(1) RSJ 533, Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology v. Slate of Punjab and another, wherein, it was observed that reservation of seats for wards of employees in the matter of admission to institutions imparting technical education is impermissible. On the contrary, the contentions of the respondents are two fold, firstly, that the judgment of Thapar Institute relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts in hand because the benefit of 3% reservation has not been given to the teachers or their spouses of a particular institution and secondly the Supreme Court in 1994(4) RSJ 711, State of Assam and others v. Dr. Pankaj Lekhar and others, held that the teachers form a class by themselves and the classification is based on intelligible differentia in having rational nexus and if some quota has been prescribed as teachers’ quota, it is not bad. It was also submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the judgment of Thapar Institute of Engineering was considered by the Supreme Court in this citation and in para No. 28 of the judgment, the above finding was given. I am of the opinion that the judgment of Thapar Institute cannot be made applicable because the benefit of reservation of 3% is not being given to the teachers or wards of a particular institution or college. Present is the case of B.Ed. Course. It is a course of education and a nominal reservation is being given to the teachers and their spouses as a general benefit as the teachers and their wards form a class by themselves and this classification is based on intelligible differentia having rational nexus to the object of the rule and thus the reservation in my opinion cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitulion of India. Therefore, 1 repel the first submission raised by the learned counsel Shri Pawan Kumar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner who had submitted that the admissions of the wards of the teachers must be quashed.
14. With regard to the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this client is entitled to the admission in the college of respondent No. 4 on the strength that this client hails from rural area. He has obtained form “C” certifying that the petitioner belongs to rural category and this certificate could be supplied to the authorities at the lime of interview but since the petitioner was never given the opportunity to supply rural certificate, therefore, the petitioner should be accommodated by respondent No. 4 even by creating an additional seat in the college if the Court is not inclined to disturb the existing arrangement.
15. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the seats were filled by respondent No. 4 according to the prospectus and further the seats were given by respondent No. 4 as per the prospectus of his own institution and no violation has been committed. It was also urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner cannot claim for seat specially when she appeared in the examination fully knowing that reservation to the exlent of 3% has been kept for the teachers and their spouses. The ranking of the petitioner is so poor that 4000 candidates are above her and at any rate, she was not eligible to get the admission in the rural category in any of the institutions and that no seat is lying vacant to accommodate the petitioner nor the petitioner can be accommodated because of her poor ranking in the entrance test. Again I am of the opinion that petitioner has no case. The petitioner opted combination of History and Punjabi and this is not available in the institution of respondent No. 4. Faced with this difficulty counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner was seeking the admission in the Social Studies Group and in the B.A. Examination she had History and Public Administration subjects, therefore, she could seek the admission. The submission is not acceptable to the Court. We have to see what respondent No. 4 is teaching to the students. If the combination opted by the petitioner is not available in the institution of respondent No. 4 how she can be accommodated there?
16. In the institution of respondent No. 4, 25 seats were available to the rural category under the reserved quota of Scheduled Castes, 23 seats have been filled. Two seats could not be filled and those were transferred to the general category. Before, the petitioner could succeed, in the present writ petition, she was bound to show that her merit was higher than the last candidate admitted in the course. This was observed by our own High Court in 2096(4) SLR 481:2000(3) SCT 666 (P&H), Shamsher Singh v. The Stale of Punjab and others.
17. In my view there is another snag in the present writ pctilion. The petition is also bound to fail on account of necessary parties. The students who were likely to be affected with the relief claimed for by the petitioner, have not been impleaded as a party. The Punjab University-respondent No. 1 undertook the examination under the directions of the State Govern-
ment. Even the State Government is not a party before us. By her own act and conduct the petitioner is also not entitled to the relief prayed for. She appeared in the entrance test without any protest with regard to the allocation of the seats. Now it is too late for her to say that the criteria of reservation or the mode of selection of respondent No. 4 is bad.
18. Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon 1990(1) RSJ 405, Parveen Hans v. Registrar, Panjab University, Chandigarh. The judgment is not applicable to the facts in hand. In the cited case no reservation of seats was mentioned in the prospectus for the employees of the University and their wards and additional seats were created for the employees and their wards. This action was challenged and the reservation of the seats were set aside holding unconstitutional having no nexus with the object to be achieved. In the present case, the reservation of the teachers and their spouses is not for the benefit of a particular college. The counsel also relied upon 1991(1) Services Cases Today 465, Pankaj v. State of Punjab and others. The judgment is again distinguishable for the reasons which I have just given above. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on AIR 1989 Punjab and Haryana 190, Ashwinder Kaur v. Panjab University. This judgment again is not helpful to the counsel for the petitioner as I have distinguished the principle upon which the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court was based in Thapar Institute’s case.
19. Thus, I conclude that the criteria of reservation is
not bad or unconstitutional and moreover, the petitioner was never eligible to get the admission in the institution of respondent No. 4 as she had no merit. Rather her merit was very poor. An effort was made by the counsel for the petitioner to convince me that since no candidate higher in merit than that of the petitioner has come in the Court to attack respondent No. 4, who converted 2 seats into general category from the rural category therefore, this seat should go to the petitioner. The submission cannot be accepted firstly because of the poor merit of the petitioner and secondly it cannot be accepted as prima facie the petitioner is not entitled to that seat. Otherwise also this Court is not inclined to give any relief to the petitioner for the reason that the B.Ed. course is of one year and four months had already elapsed. It will also not be fair to dislodge the students who are getting the studies for the last more than four months of a course of one year duration.
I have considered all the pros and cons of the present writ petition. It is devoid of any merit. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
20. Petition dismissed.