CWP No. 13951 of 2008 ( 1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13951 of 2008
Date of Decision: 12-09-2008
Sunita Rani ....Petitioner
Versus
Panjab University and others .....Respondent
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Present: Shri J.S. Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The petitioner is a Scheduled Castes candidate having
graduated from the Panjab University, as a private candidate, in the year
2006.
The respondent-University, issued Prospectus for admission
in B.Ed. (Regular)-2008 for Colleges of Education, situated in
Chandigarh. The petitioner applied for admission to such course under
Union Territory Pool Category, considering herself to be eligible on the
basis of her B.A. Qualification. On the basis of Entrance Test conducted
on 6.7.2008, the petitioner was ranked 453.
It is the case of the petitioner that the candidates who are
lower in merit have been admitted, whereas the petitioner has been
denied admission and thus, aggrieved, she has invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court. It is pointed out by the petitioner that in the
Prospectus, there are two sources for filling up the seats for admission.
One is 60% Union Territory Pool, which is meant for students who
passed their qualifying examination from Colleges recognised by the
CWP No. 13951 of 2008 ( 2)
Chandigarh Administration and situated in the Union Territory,
Chandigarh, as a regular student of the said College/Institution. It is
further subject to the condition that such students must have studied
for two years at Chandigarh and have passed one lower qualifying
examination from the Colleges/Institutions situated in the Union
Territory Chandigarh. All other students, who have not passed their
qualifying examination from the Institutions located in Union Territory
Chandigarh, fall within 40% General Pool, which is the second source of
admission. The relevant conditions contained in the Prospectus, read as
under:-
“1. Eligibility for Entrance Test
1.1. A. For admission to the Colleges of U.T.
(Chandigarh) condition of residence is not
required.
B. U.T. Pool 60%: Out of the total sanctioned
intake of the institution 60% seats will be filled
up from amongst the students who passed their
qualifying examination from colleges recognised
by the Chandigarh Administration and situated
in the Union Territory of Chandigarh as a
regular student of the said College/Institution,
subject to the condition that such students
must have studied for two years at Chandigarh
and have passed one lower qualifying
examination from the colleges/institutions
situated in the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
These seats will be termed as `UT Pool’.
C. General Pool 40%: Out of the total sanctioned
intake of the institutions 40% seats will be filed
from amongst the students, who have passed
their qualifying examination from the
institutions, other than those located in the
Union Territory of Chandigarh or otherwise.
These seats will be termed as `General Pool’.
Note: (i) Candidates who have done
Postgraduation from a college/institution
CWP No. 13951 of 2008 ( 3)
situated in U.T. as regular students and
graduation from outside U.T., will not be
considered under the U.T. Pool.
(ii) Candidates who have done graduation
from the Department of Correspondence Studies,
Panjab University and are residing in
Chandigarh will not be considered under the
U.T. Pool. These candidates will be considered
under the General Pool.
xxx xxx xxx
6. General Rules
xxx xxx xxx
Note:
i) xxx xxx xxx
ii) Candidates who wish to seek admission in the
Colleges of Education situated at Chandigarh
must clearly state whether they belong to U.T.
Pool (the students who passed their qualifying
examination from colleges recognised by the
Chandigarh Administration and situated in the
Union Territory of Chandigarh as regular
students of the said college subject to the
condition that such students must have studied
for atleast two years at Chandigarh and have
passed one qualifying examination from these
colleges) or General Pool (the student who have
passed their qualifying examination from the
institutions other than those located in the
Union Territory of Chandigarh or otherwise) and
any Reserved categories, must clearly state the
categories code in the appropriate column in the
Form.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the
petitioner is not eligible for the admission against U.T. Pool, the
respondents are bound to consider the claim of the petitioner for
admission against the General Pool.
CWP No. 13951 of 2008 ( 4)
It is contended that in the General Pool, a candidate, who is
lower in merit has been admitted, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to
be admitted in the General Pool. Learned counsel for the respondents
has produced photocopy of the application form submitted by the
petitioner. The petitioner has applied as a U.T. Pool candidate. She has
also sought the benefit of reservation by filling in category code as 22
which is meant for a Scheduled Castes candidate.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find
any merit in the present writ petition. The admission process is divided
into two vertical components; one is meant for U.T. Candidates called
U.T. Pool and the other is for the General Pool. The petitioner has
applied in a U.T. Pool and also claimed reservation. The petitioner could
be considered against the General Category candidates falling to U.T.
Pool only. For consideration as a General Pool candidate, the petitioner
has to apply as a candidate of the General Pool. It was not open to the
petitioner to apply for one category and to seek admission in another.
There is no switching over of the Pools permissible in terms of the Rules.
Still further, the candidates, who have done graduation from Department
of Correspondence Studies have been specifically excluded from
consideration under the U.T. Pool. The petitioner having graduated as a
private candidate, does not stand in any way on better position than the
candidates, who have graduated from the Department of Correspondence
Studies. Therefore, the petitioner could not be treated as a U.T. Pool
candidate nor in fact, any effort was made by the petitioner to assert that
she was a U.T. Pool candidate.
We do not find any merit in the argument raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner has applied
as a U.T. Pool candidate, still she should be treated as a General Pool
candidate. The principle propounded by the petitioner is applicable for
reservation meant for Scheduled Castes; Scheduled Tribes and
CWP No. 13951 of 2008 ( 5)
Backward Classes candidates. But, the admission against General Pool
is separate source for admission, where there is separate reservation
for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes.
Therefore, the petitioner cannot be ordered to be shifted to General Pool.
In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the present writ
petition. Hence, the same is dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
September 12, 2008
ds
