Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1822 (PNJ)

Anchal Jindal v. State Of Punjab

2007-10-10

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment Adarash Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 17.11.2006, Annexure P.7 issued by respondent No. 3, University declaring the petitioners to be ineligible and not recognising their admissions. 2. Case of the petitioners is that they applied for admission to the BDS in pursuance to advertisement Annexures P.1/P.2 dated 30.9.2006 issued by respondent No. 4 (a private Dental College) and were given admissions on 30.9.2006 as per recommendations of the Selection Committee. By the impugned order, for out of nine petitioners were declared ineligible for having secured less than 50% marks in PMET and other five candidates have been declared to be ineligible to appear in the exam on the ground that their admissions were not legitimate. 3. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that even those candidates who secured less than 50% marks in PMET, were eligible in absence of other eligible candidates being available and admissions of all the nine candidates were legitimate based on recommendations of the Committee, which also included University representative. The petitioners having undergone the studies for one year, their admissions could not be cancelled at this stage. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the University, stand taken is that admissions of the petitioners were fraudulent, lacking in merit and transparency. Large number of meritorious candidates who had qualified PMET and scored higher marks, were available but only with a view to give admissions to the petitioners, they were declared to be unavailable. Inter- alia, following averments have been made in the reply : "The nine students in question, admitted by the College on 30.9.2006 happen to have secured the following marks in the PMET : 1. Anchal Jindal, 416, 2. Baljeet Kaur, 344 (Less than 50%), 3. Dimpy Gupta, 464, 4. Mahakpreet Kaul, 300 (Less than 50%), 5. Preetinder Kaur, 436, 6. Preena Singla, 412, 7. Savitoz Brar, 480, 8. Shilpi S. Kumar, 375 (Less than 50%), 9. Swati Singla, 360 (Less than, 50%). Four out of the 9 candidates secured less than 50% marks in the PMET and, are thus, outrightly ineligible for admission as per Clause 7.1 of the Punjab Govt. Notification dated April 24, 2006. The last candidate admitted by the University to the BDS Course at the second round of counselling held on September 9, 2006 had obtained 484 marks. Four out of the 9 candidates secured less than 50% marks in the PMET and, are thus, outrightly ineligible for admission as per Clause 7.1 of the Punjab Govt. Notification dated April 24, 2006. The last candidate admitted by the University to the BDS Course at the second round of counselling held on September 9, 2006 had obtained 484 marks. As per the University merit list/waiting list, there were as many as 30 candidates who had secured between 483 and 480 marks in PMET-06 (including both 483 and 480) apart from 26 candidates who had all secured 484 marks. After 480 marks, the next candidate in the PMET merit list had secured 476 marks. An aggregate of 101 candidates had secured between 476 and 465 marks (both 476 and 474 included). No merit list beyond or below 464 marks was prepared by the University. It is thus apparent that the plea of non- availability of candidates from the PMET merit list/waiting list of the University and/or the reliance placed by the College management on the Punjab Govt. notification of May 10, 2006 is completely misconceived and spurious. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 3. That it is important to state that the advertisement Annexure P. 1 nowhere mentions the number of vacant seats for which the said counselling was scheduled, which the said counselling was scheduled, which fact itself demonstrates the lack of bona fides and/or transparency of the College in conducting the counselling. Even the University was not informed about the number of seats for which the counselling was scheduled. It is only on 30.9.2006, at the time of counselling itself, that the College disclosed/declared that 8 seats were vacant for which the said counselling was being conducted. Further, it is submitted that in response to the Universitys letter dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure P.12), the College vide its letter dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure P. 13) supplied the details of the students who had left the College on or before 30.9.2006 which led to the counselling dated 20.9.2006 and the admissions of the petitioners which are in question. The letter Annexure P.13 shows that the seats fell vacant either on 29th or 30th September, 2006 which is contrary to the information given by the students and/or their guardians. The copies of the proformas furnished by the students and/or their guardians including their remarks/comments on the said proformas, is attached as Annexure R.2/2 (Colly). The letter Annexure P.13 shows that the seats fell vacant either on 29th or 30th September, 2006 which is contrary to the information given by the students and/or their guardians. The copies of the proformas furnished by the students and/or their guardians including their remarks/comments on the said proformas, is attached as Annexure R.2/2 (Colly). They expose the untruth sought to be propagated by the college. A bare perusal of the said proformas shows that of the eight seats for which counselling was conducted on 30.9.2006, five fell vacant in the month of August 2006. And of the said five seats three seats (Shivani Gupta, Tajinder Kumar and Kaushat Kumar) fell vacant for the reason that the students did not deposit the fee and did not join at all. 4. That further, it is submitted that, as is evident from the complaint received by the University from Shefali Singla, a candidate who left her seat on 17.8.2006, the College was harassing and threatening the candidates that the fee was likely to be enhanced and they would have to pay more. The College even asked the candidates to furnish Bank Guarantees to the extent of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Even some other candidates who left their seats complained that the College was demanding fees over and above the fee prescribed by the Punjab Government. It is important to state that Smt. Poonam Singla, mother of Shefali Singla in her complaint to the Registrar of the University stated that the College had forced her daughter to vacate the seat and had sold the seat for Rs. 15 lacs to some other candidate. A copy of Shefali and Poonam Singlas complaints is attached as Annexure R.2/3 (Colly). Another complaint received by the University on 27.9.2006 from Ms. Savitoz Brar stated she was not informed by the college of the counselling on 27.9.2006. Her father, Sh. Saravjit Singh Brar, Advocate also complained to the University, filing an affidavit. A copy of her complaint dated 27.9.2006 and her fathers affidavit and complaint dated 28.9.2006 is attached as Annexure R2/4 (Colly). The complaints and affidavit reveal the modus operandi followed by the college in making admissions. 5. That for the reasons detailed hereinabove, the admission of the petitioners made by the respondent College was/is clearly and completely illegal. A copy of her complaint dated 27.9.2006 and her fathers affidavit and complaint dated 28.9.2006 is attached as Annexure R2/4 (Colly). The complaints and affidavit reveal the modus operandi followed by the college in making admissions. 5. That for the reasons detailed hereinabove, the admission of the petitioners made by the respondent College was/is clearly and completely illegal. The impugned action of the University in refusing to register the petitioners or approve their admission is fully constitutional, legal, fair reasonable and valid and deserves to be upheld by this Honble Court." We have considered identical matter in CWP No. 9495 of 20907 (Sukhmeet Kaur Deol and others v. State of Punjab and others) by a separate order passed today. Advertisements Annexure P. 1 and P. 2 are as under : Annexure P.1 "Application for resultant vacant/vacant seats in BDS course session 2006-07 are invited on prescribed proforma (available on college counter on payment of Rs. 1000/- upto 11.00 AM on 30.9.20016 i.e., today). The order of preference for admission eligibility will be 1st PMET qualified 2nd PMET appeared 3rd 10+2 with 50% marks in PCB. Interview will be conducted at 1.00 PM onwards in the college campus. Selected candidates will have to deposit fee on the spot, failing which the seat will be offered to next candidate." Annexure P. 2 "A few left over seats are available in the Management Quota. These seats will be filled up from the PMET Merit List, PMET appeared or from 10+2 on 30.9.2006 at 10 AM accordingly. Candidates are required to appear in the counselling in the office of Principal at 10:00 Hrs." It is clear that the advertisements have been given on 30.9.2006 and selections have also been made on the same day. Such advertisements could hardly be treated as sufficient notice to all meritorious candidates. In Annexure P. 2, it has been stated that seats are in management quota which could give an impression that the management had a discretion in making admissions irrespective of the merit. For the reasons given in connected matter disposed of today in Sukhmeet Kaur Deol (supra), such admissions clearly lack transparency and merit and are clearly void. 5 The fact, however, remains that the University failed to take any action against the College by way of withdrawal of affiliation or to take steps for cancellation of recognition or imposing any fine or penalty or otherwise. 5 The fact, however, remains that the University failed to take any action against the College by way of withdrawal of affiliation or to take steps for cancellation of recognition or imposing any fine or penalty or otherwise. Though vide Annexure P. 7, it was stated that the candidates will not be treated as eligible, vide letter dated 28.11.2006, Annexure P. 10, documents were sought, and, thus issue was not finalised. Further letter was written by the University on 1.12.2006 Annexure P. 12, which enabled the students to continue. On 22.5.2007, an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners but the reply has been filed by the University only on 28.9.2007. There has been no participation by the State by filing of reply or otherwise. No mechanism has been developed for taking immediate action or for prohibiting private Dental Colleges from making advertisements for management quota for filling up seats which remain vacant after centralised counselling or for requiring seats to be filled up only out of waiting list prepared in centralised counselling. No opportunity of hearing has been given to the affected parties before cancelling the admissions. 6. We, therefore, quash the cancellation of admissions but leave it open to the respondents to take such fresh appropriate action against the concerned college, as may be considered appropriate in accordance with law. 7. We have already issued general directions in the connected matter and no further direction need be issued separately for future policy. 8. Let this petition be also put up alongwith CWP No. 9495 of 2007 on 28.1.2008. Order accordingly.