ORDER
R.S. Mongia, J.
1. By this judgment we propose to decide two Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 1217 and 1218 of 1988, filed by
the Punjab University, inasmuch as learned single Judge, against whose judgment these two Letters Patent Appeals have arisen, had decided two Writ Petitions Nos. 8065 of 1988 and 8362 of 19S8 by the same judgment.
2. Ashwinder Kaur and Ritu Chandha, writ-petitioners, in the above-said two writ petitions, had challenged the criteria for admission to the course of Master of Library and Information Science (in short M. Lib.) in the Punjab University for the session 1988-89. The challenge to the criteria for admission to the said course was:
(i) The department had introduced qualifications higher than the minimum prescribed in the University Calendar for admission to the course, thereby excluded the petitioners to seek admission;
(ii) That giving weightage of 5% marks to the dependent sons/daughters of the Punjab University employees in service or retired, was arbitrary and discriminatory; and
(iii) That the formula laid down by the authorities for normalisation of marks obtained in the minimum qualifying examination as well as in the higher qualification was also arbitrary. The learned single Judge accepted all the above three points raised on behalf of the writ petitioners and allowed the writ petitions. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the University has come up in appeals.
3. It may be mentioned here that when the writ petitions were admitted, the University was directed to admit the petitioners provisionally to the M.Lib. Course. The writ petitioners have completed their course and have passed the said examination. At the outset we put it to the University counsel that the decision in the appeals would be just academic, inasmuch as the writ petitioners have already passed the M. Lib. course. Mr. N.K. Sodhi, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant-university, submitted that the University was keen to get a decision in the matter for their future guidance as to whether they could lay down the criteria which has been struck down by the learned single Judge. He also undertook that even in case these Letters Patent Appeals were
to be allowed the benefit of the judgment of the learned single Judge to the petitioners would not be withdrawn and their result in the M. Lib, examination would stand. Accordingly, we proceeded to hear the counsel for the respective parties.
4. A brief resume of the facts and the-relevant provisions of the University Calendar regarding the admission to M.Lib. would be necessary at this stage.
5. Writ petition Ashwinder Kaur, who is a Graduate from the Punjab University, passed her Bachelor of Library Science Examination in April, 1988, obtaining 66% marks and securing second position in the University. She also passed M.A. in Economics. She applied for admission to the M. Lib. Course for the year 1988-89, but was unsuccessful in getting admission. Somewhat similar are the facts of the other writ petitioner Miss Ritu Chadha.
6. Regulation 3.1 of the Punjab University Calendar, Volume II, 1984 (Page 172) prescribes the minimum qualification for admission to the M.Lib. Course. The same is reproduced below:–
“3.1. The minimum qualifications for admission to the course for the degree of Master of Library Science shall be-
(i) the Punjab University Post-graduate diploma in Library Science (one year course) or the Punjab University Bachelor of Library Science degree, with at least 50 per cent marks in the aggregate of either of them;
or
(ii) a diploma or degree of another University recognised by the Syndicate as equivalent to (i) with at least 50 per cent marks in the aggregate”. As against the above, the notice of admission, which has been attached as An-nexure R-l to the written statement, laid down the criteria to admission for M. Lib. and the same is reproduced below:–
“Criteria for Admission:
(i) Candidates will be admitted on the basis of their merit in post-Graduate Diploma
(P.G. Dip)/Bachelor of Library & Information Science examination together with their merit in the Master’s/Bachelor’s degree (other than Library’ Information Science) in the following order:–
(i) P.G. Dip. Lib. Sc/B. Lib& Inf. Sc. with 50% marks and above
and Master’s degree with 55% marks and above.
(ii) P.G. Dip., Lib. Sc/B. Lib & Inf. Sc. with 50% marks and above and
(iii) P.G. Dip. Lib. Sc./B Lib. & Inf. Sc. with 50% marks and above
and
(iv) P.G. Dip. Lib. Sc./B. Lib. & Inf. Sc.
with 50% Marks and above
and
Master’s degree with less than 50% marks of Bachelor’s degree with less than 60% marks.”
Merit list in each category was to be prepared by finding the percentage of marks by a formula to which reference would be made later. The first category was to take preference over the second category and so on. The prospectus also provided for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Physically handicapped candidates, sportsmen/ women, etc. The total reservation came to 42.5% of the seats. The University had also provided weightage of marks to various categories like those who had passed the qualifying examination from the Panjab University, candidates having been awarded N.C.C. and N.S.S. certificates etc. These weightages were limited to maximum of 15%. However, over and above this weightage of 5% was to be given to the dependent sons/daughters of Panjab University employees in service or retired. This weightage is exclusive of other, weightages of marks for different categories is reproduced below:–
"B. (i): Weightage "While all candidates admitted must satisfy the minimum academic requirements for admission, the following weightages will be added to the marks obtained in the qualifying Examination": (a) 10% to those who have passed the qualifying examination from the Panjab University.
(b) 5% to dependent sons/daughters of Panjab University employees in service or retired, who have/had at least five years continuous service in the Punjab University. This weight age shall also be given to dependent sons/daughters of such persons as are fellows of the Punjab University. This weigh-tage will be exclusive of the other weightages which are limited to a maximum of 15% of the aggregate marks obtained.
(c) Up to 4% for distinction in co-cur-ricular activities in the following items (1 % for each item):
(i) N.C.C. (B or C Certificates)
(ii) N.S.S. (0, A or B grades or certificate of merit for winning First or Second position).”
It was clause (b) quoted above, which was challenged before the learned single Judge.
7. The learned single Judge held that since the University Calendar provided the minimum qualifications as B. Lib. or Punjab University Post-graduate Diploma in Library Science with 50% marks. The University could not lay down higher qualifications than the one prescribed in the University Calendar and, therefore, the notice of admission laying down higher qualifications for admission to M.Lib. was bad in law. It was further held that giving weightage of 5% marks to the dependent so us/daughters of the Punjab University employees was arbitrary and further that there was nothing wrong with normalisation of marks obtained by the candidates, but the normalisation should have been only of the marks of the minimum qualifying examination and not of any higher qualification.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant-university submitted that Regulation 3.1 of the University Calendar, which has been
quoted above, only laid down the minimum qualification for admission and it was always open to the appropriate authority to prescribe higher qualifications than the minimum for purpose of admission to a particular course. According to the learned counsel, it was the Board of Control of each department which could lay down the criteria for admission and in the present case it was the Board of Control of the department which had laid down the criteria which was published in the notice for admission laying down higher qualifications. He went on to argue that the authority which is to admit the students can prescribe any reasonable criteria for admission of the candidates out of those who have the minimum required qualifications, such as holding an entrance examination and making admissions on the basis of the merit in the entrance examination and not on the basis of merit of the minimum qualifying examination. For example, a person who gets even 80% marks in the minimum qualifying examination may be ignored in comparison to a person who had got 70% in the qualifying examination if in the entrance examination, the candidate who obtained 80% in the qualifying examination was lower in merit than the person who had obtained 70% marks in the minimum qualifying examination. In support of his contention, he cited R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823; D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1762, Stale of Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath, (1971) 1 SCC 607 : (AIR 1971 SC 2560) and Sant Lal v. State of Haryana (1978) 1 Serv LR 133 (Pun & Har).
9. We find substance in this argument of the learned counsel. It will be seen from Regulation No. 3.1 prescribing the qualification for admission to M.Lib., that these are the minimum qualifications. In other words, the admission cannot be made by prescribing lower qualifications than mentioned in Regulation No. 3.1. However, this did not debar the Authorities to lay down higher qualifications for the purpose of admission. In Lavu Narendranath’s case (AIR 1971 SC 2560) (supra), the Apex Court held that though the minimum qualification for admission which was prescribed was 50% at the qualifying
examination, but this did not debar the Government which runs the Colleges, the right to make selection out of large number of candidates and for this purpose they could prescribe a test of their own which was not against any law. The Supreme Court went on to say that merely because they tried to, supplement the eligibility rule by a written test, the action could not be impeached. It observed as under:— (Para 8)
“Merely because the University has made regulations regarding the admission of students to its degree courses, it did not mean that any one who had passed the qualifying examination such as the P.U.G. or H.S.C. was ipso facto to be entitled to admission to such courses of study. If the number of candidates applying for such admission far exceeds the number of seats available the University can have to make its choice out of the applicants to find out who should be admitted and if instead of judging the candidates by the number of marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination the University thinks fit to prescribe another test for admission no objection can be taken thereto. What the University can do in the matter of admissions to the degree courses can certainly be done by the Government in the matter of adrnission to the M.B.B.S. course.
10. Similarly, in R. Chitralekha’s case (AIR 1964 SC 1823) (supra), while dealing with the contentions raised in para 6 of the report, that the Government had no power to appoint a Selection Committee for admitting students to Colleges on the basis of higher or different qualifications than those prescribed by the University and, therefore, the orders made by the Government in respect of admissions were illegal, it was held in para 10 of the report as under :–
We, therefore, hold that the Government has power to prescribe a machinery and also the criteria for admission of qualified students to medical and engineering Colleges run by the Government and, with the consent of the management of the Government aided Colleges to the said Colleges also.”
11. In D. N. Chanchala’s case (AIR 1964 SC 1823) (supra) repelling a similar contention, the apex court observed as under in para 15 of the report:–
“These Ordinances and regulations made
under the Acts lay down the minimum qualifications required for eligibility and are not to be confused with rules for admission. A candidate may have the minimum qualification so as to make him eligible for entrance in a particular faculty. That does not mean that his being eligible necessarily makes him entitled to admission in that faculty, for admission can only be commensurate with the number of available seats in such a faculty.”
12. Sant Lal’s case (1978 (I) Serv LR 133) (supra), which is a case under the Service Law, a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider a similar matter whether higher qualification than the one prescribed in the statutory rules could be laid down for appointment to a particular post. While dealing with the challenge to the prescription of higher qualifications than the one prescribed in the statutory rules, the Division Bench observed as under:–
“Whether this is obviously a prescription of minimum qualifications or the barest requirement for eligibility, then plainly there can be no bar for the respondent-State to seek persons with higher qualifications than the lowest level laid down by the rule makers. Ordinarily, the rationale underlying the prescription of qualifications in most statutes or rules is to prevent poor or unqualified persons to be appointed to a post in the public service which requires the performance of responsible duties. It could hardly be the intent of the legislature to either debar persons of higher qualification or to deny them the preference which they by their industry or merit signified by superior qualifications may entail. Nor can one read into the prescription of minimum qualification requirement that every person having such qualification must be considered against that post despite the fact that others superior in merit to him are available for the same. Of course, we are not saying that the minimum qualifications cannot be fixed by statute because the legislature may well have
planery powers to do so. All that is being indicated is that unless expressly otherwise provided the prescription of qualifications is ordinarily the minima for eligibility to the particular post and not the maxima therefor:”
13. In view of the authoritative pronouncements, we are of the view that there is nothing wrong to lay down the higher qualifications for the purpose of admission to a particular course than the minimum prescribed.
14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners submitted that it is the same authority who had promulgated Regulation 3.1, which could change the qualifications and it could not be changed by any other authority. According to the learned counsel, the Syndicate is the authority to frame regulations and, therefore, Board of Control of the department had no jurisdiction to lay down any higher qualification. Further he `submitted that laying down of qualifications like Master’s degree over and above the minimum prescribed had no nexus for purpose of admission to M.Lib. course. Regulation 3 of Chapter Vll(b) of the Punjab University Calendar, Volume I, 1986, provides for the appointment of Board of Control and Regulation 4 gives the duties of the Board of Contfb’l. The same are reproduced below:–
“3. The Syndicate shall, from time to time, appoint Boards of Control for the various teaching departments of the University. Such Boards shall be appointed in January every year and shall consist of-
(1) Head of the University Department in the subject concerned as ex-officio Chairman; and
(2) Not less than four, but not more than six teachers appointed by the Syndicate.
4. The Board of Control shall be the authority to admit Students to the teaching department concerned. It shall also draw up the programme of teaching work for approval of the Dean of University Instruction”
15. From the bare perusal of the above regulations, it would be seen that the Board of
Control, which is a creation of the regulations is the authority to admit the students to the teaching departments concerned. The University counsel produced before us the documents to show that the criteria was laid down by the Board of Control duly approved by the Dean. The criteria in no way runs counter to Regulations. I made by the Syndicate. We have already observed that Regulation 3.1 only prescribes the minimum qualifications for admission to M.Lib. course. Consequently, we hold that the Board of Control is the authority to lay down the criteria, but the criteria so laid down cannot run counter to the regulations framed by the University. It was pleaded by the University in para 7 of the written statement that higher qualifications were laid down keeping in view the qualifications laid down by the U.G.C. inasmuch as for purpose of appointment as a Lecturer etc. after qualifying M.Lib., a person has to be M. A. in some subject and mere M.Lib. would not entitle them to get a job. Para ? of the written statement (relevant part) is reproduced below –
“The Department of Library Science, Punjab University, Chandigarh like all similar departments of leading Universities in the country have decided the preferences in regard to the qualifications for admission to this course keeping in view the qualifications laid down by the University Grants Commission for appointment to the various posts which ultimately the candidates are bound to compete for. A true copy of the relevant part of the minimum qualifications prescribed by the UGC for recruitment to the posts of College Librarian and Assistant Librarian etc. is appended herewith as Annexure R/l. Keeping these recommendations in view, the Punjab University adopted the criteria for admission to the said course which is given in Annexure R/2. This criteria, as mentioned in the Prospectus was duly displayed on the Notice Board of the Department on 26-7-1988 and continued to be displayed till 30-7-1988 for the information and guidance of the candidates.”
It had also been further averred in the written statement that similar criteria had been
adopted by all the leading Universities in the country, including the other Universities in the State of Punjab.
16. For the aforementioned reasons, the decision of learned single Judge on the above-said point is reversed and it is held that the University could lay down the criteria for admission as issued in the Notice, Anne-xure R/1 to the written statement.
17. Now coming to the second point, we find that there is nothing wrong with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Giving weightage of 5% marks to the dependent sons/daughters of Punjab University employees has no nexus with the object to be achieved. One can imagine giving weightage for the Institutional preference by giving marks to those who had qualified the examination from a particular University or a person who has obtained certificate in N.C.C. or N.S S., etc. but simply because somebody’s father or mother is working or has worked in the University, is no ground to give weightage to their wards. Another learned single Judge of this Court in Charanjit Kaur v. State of Haryana (1990) 97 Pun LR 123 : (AIR 1990 Punj and Har 339), has struck down a similar provision of the Kurukshetra University being wholly arbitrary and discriminatory. We also find that no weightage can be provided under this category and Cl. (b) providing weightage, which has been quoted above, was rightly quashed by the learned single Judge.
18. Now coming to the normalisation criteria adopted by the University. The learned single Judge has not struck down the criteria of normalisation, but he has observed that normalisation should be only in the
marks of the minimum qualifying examination and not of the higher examination. Just to understand what normalisation of marks is, it may be illustrated that different Universi-,ties have different maximum marks of a particular examination or even in the Punjab University, maximum marks for B.A./B.Sc. are different. For example, in Punjab University the maximum marks for M.A./ M.Sc./M.Com. are 800: whereas in some other Universities this varies from 1000 to 2400. What the University does is that it finds out how many marks proportionately would be out of 800 and then normalise marks of that candidate so that both can be compared. What the University has done is that first it has normalised the marks of minimum qualifying examination of the various candidates and then added to them the marks out of 800 of M.A./M.Sc. and then found out the percentage. Following illustration would clarify what we have stated above:–
POSITION WITHOUT
NORMALISATION
Marks in B.L.I.S.
Marks in M.A./ M.Sc./ M.Com.
Total of Cols. 2 and 3
(Average) Final % age
480= 60%
800
800= 50%
1600
1280 x 100
2400
53.33%
POSITION AFTER
NORMALISATION
480= 60%
800
480= 50%
800
880 x 100%
1600
55%
For the view we have taken on point No. 1 that higher qualifications could be laid down, it follows fortiorari that normalisation not only of marks of the minimum qualifying exam had to be done but it had to be done so also of marks of the higher qualification and then added together. So we hold that the learned single Judge was not correct to restrict the normalisation only of the marks of the minimum qualifying exam.
19. For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are partly allowed and it is held that :–
(i) The competent authority can lay down higher qualifications than the minimum
prescribed for admission; therefore there was nothing wrong in the notice of admission for M.Lib. examination Annexure R-l.
(ii) The learned single Judge was correct in holding that no weightage of marks could be provided to the dependent sons/daughters of the employees of the University.
(iii) The normalisation of the marks had to be both of the minimum qualifying examination as well as of the higher qualifications. Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that in spite of the fact that the judgment of the learned single Judge on points (i) and (iii) has been reversed, which would have the effect of cancelling the admission/examination taken by the writ petitioners, but as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, the degree of M.Lib. awarded to the writ petitioners would not be cancelled in spite of our allowing the writ petitions. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.
20. Appeals partly allowed.