Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks a direction for quashing admission given to respondent No. 4 and to give admission to the petitioner to M.D. Medicine course. to which respondent No. 4 has been admitted. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he did MBBS in the year 2005 and applied for admission to M.D. Course in the year 2007. Common Entrance "Pest was held on 22.4.2007 and the petitioner secured 504 marks, while respondent No. 4 secured 460 marks. Counselling for admission under the Sikh Minority Quota was held on 29.6.2007 and the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 4. Second counselling was held for open category seats, as a result of which the petitioner became first candidate in the waiting list for admission to the Sikh Minority Quota. Third counselling was held on 9.10.2007 and one Dr. Sheerin who had been admitted to Sikh Minority Quota, vacated the seat, as a result of which one M.D. Medicine seat became available. Respondent No. 4 was given admission ignoring the claim of the petitioner who was higher in merit. After filing of the petition, the petitioner filed affidavit dated 21.11.2007 to the effect that respondent No. 4 Charanpreet Singh was son of Dr. Gurinder Singh Grewal, who was one of the members of the Trust of respondent No. 1 Institute and on that account, respondent No. 4 was given undue benefit. With the same affidavit, letter of the University dated 8.11.2007, Annexure `A has been filed to this effect and letter of the Government of Punjab, Annexure B dated 31.10.2007 has also been filed stating that vacant seat was required to be filled up in fair and transparent manner strictly on merit in the presence of Chairman, Counselling Committee and representatives of the University. Further affidavit dated 27.11.2007 has been filed to the effect that on petitioners complaint, after enquiry, the University has declared that the vacancy which became available on account of shifting of Dr. Sheerin Kaur Shah should have been given to the petitioner. 3. Respondent No. 1 Institute has filed a reply and further affidavits. It has been admitted that respondent No. 4 was son of Dr. Gurinder Singh Grewal, a member of the Trust running respondent No. 1 - Institute. It has also been admitted that the petitioner had been placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list before third counselling. 3. Respondent No. 1 Institute has filed a reply and further affidavits. It has been admitted that respondent No. 4 was son of Dr. Gurinder Singh Grewal, a member of the Trust running respondent No. 1 - Institute. It has also been admitted that the petitioner had been placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list before third counselling. which was held on 9.10.2007 on which date, one seat was vacated by Dr. Sheerin and a notice was put up on the notice board Annexure R1/5 on 10.10.2007 itself regarding the said seat, to the following effect : "One seat under Sikh minority quota in MS General Surgery has fallen vacant. Interested eligible candidates as per merit list may contract this office by 13.10.2007 by 4 PM." A letter was also written to the petitioner being Annexure R 1/6 offering the said seat to him; which is to the following effect : "Dr. Tarundeep Singh S/o S. Ranjit Singh, C/o Dr. R.S. Marwaha, Central Potato Research Station, Post Bag No. 1, Jalandhar. One seat under Sikh Minority Quota in M. S. General Surgery has fallen vacant, if you are interested contact this office by 13.10.2007 by 4 PM." Similar letters were written to Dr. Gurshant Singh, Dr. Vaneet Kaur Sandhu who were above respondent No. 4 and also to respondent No. 4 but on 13.10.2007, a representation was received from respondent No. 4 who had made identical representation earlier also to the effect that he was entitled to admission under Institutional Preference Reservation by applying the same to the Minority Quota. This representation was considered by Five Member Counselling Committee in the light of notification dated 27.6.2007 and on that basis, respondent No. 4 was given admission on 13.10.2007, against the said seat. 4. This representation was considered by Five Member Counselling Committee in the light of notification dated 27.6.2007 and on that basis, respondent No. 4 was given admission on 13.10.2007, against the said seat. 4. To the above stand of respondent No. 1, the petitioner has taken serious objections, namely : (i) Corrigendum dated 27.6.2007 regarding institutional preference had been issued on 27.6.2007 (Annexure R1/1) but in the counselling held on 29.6.2007 and 11.8.2007, no such claim was ever made and no reservation for institutional preference was considered; (ii) No applications were called for institutional preference quota nor any advertisement issued; (iii) Though representation of respondent No. 4 is said to be dated 17.8.2007, received on 27.8.2007, as per rejoinder of respondent No. 1, the petitioner was offered the said seat on 10.10.2007 vide notice Annexure R1/5 and letter Annexure R1/6. (iv) Respondent No. 4 being son of a Trustee, the plea of institutional preference was taken only to confer undue benefit to him. (v) The admission by way of institutional preference was not applicable to a minority seat and the same could not be institution-wise. Reliance has been placed on judgments of this Court in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana v. The State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 5656 of 2004., decided on 20.8.2004, Sri Guru Ram Das Charitable Hospital Trust, Amritsar and others v. State of Punjab and another, 2004 (1) PLR 99., and judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others v. Thukral Anjali Deokumar and others, AIR 1989 SC 1194 and P.K. Goel and others v. UP Medical Council and others, AIR 1992 SC 1475. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that in view of corrigendum issued by the Government of Punjab, Annexure RI/1, 50% seats for general category could be given by way of institutional preference and though. this was not done earlier, on representation of respondent No. 4, a decision was taken by a committee on 13.10.2007 and respondent No. 4 was given admission which was not illegal and was also not to favour him on account of his being the son of a Trustee. this was not done earlier, on representation of respondent No. 4, a decision was taken by a committee on 13.10.2007 and respondent No. 4 was given admission which was not illegal and was also not to favour him on account of his being the son of a Trustee. He submitted that the judgments relied upon were distinguishable or were prior to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudri and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 2004 SC 364 : [2004(1) SLR 287 (SC)]., wherein institution-wise quota was held to be permissible. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. We find that irrespective of the question whether admission by way of institutional preference could have been given, giving of admission to respondent No. 4 was illegal. The petitioner being at No. 1 and respondent No. 4 being at No. 4 and though, corrigendum in respect of institutional preference relied upon by respondent No. 1 is dated 27.6.2007. No institutional preference quota was ever applied or notified. The same was applied only to respondent No. 4 even after the only available seat had been offered to the petitioner. It is well known that there may not be direct evidence of malafides or bias but the same has to be inferred from the circumstances. Respondent No. 4 being the son of the Trustee and the institutional preference quota having been invoked only to give him admission without any prior decision, cannot be held to be on merit or consistent with the principle of transparency. The same has been done only to confer an undue favour and, thus, is liable to be set aside. 8. Though, we could have disposed of this petition as respondent No. 1 fully represents the same view-point as respondent No. 4, by way of abundant caution, we consider it appropriate to issue notice to respondent No. 4 for 10.1.2008 also and the view expressed herein above is subject to hearing respondent No. 4. 9. Question is whether prayer of the petitioner for interim relief of suspension of admission of respondent No. 4 and/or giving provisional admission to the petitioner can be accepted. It has been pointed out that if interim order is not granted, the petition will be infructuous in view of time schedule for admission. 10. 9. Question is whether prayer of the petitioner for interim relief of suspension of admission of respondent No. 4 and/or giving provisional admission to the petitioner can be accepted. It has been pointed out that if interim order is not granted, the petition will be infructuous in view of time schedule for admission. 10. We are of the view that case for passing an appropriate interim order is made out. We recall the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati and others, AIR 1983 SC 580., to the following effect : "4. Cases like these in which admissions granted to students in educational institutions are quashed raise a sensitive human issue. It is unquestionably true that the authorities who are charged with the duty of admitting students to educational institutions roust act fairly and objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous considerations and the authorities violate the norms set down by the rules and regulations, a sense of resentment and frustration is bound to be generated in the minds of those unfortunate young students who are wrongly or purposefully left out. Indiscipline in educational institutions is not wholly unconnected with a lack of sense of moral values on the part of the administrators and teachers alike. But, the problem which the Courts are faced with the these cases is, that it is not until a period of six months or a year elapses after the admissions are made that the intervention of the Court comes into play. Writ petitions involving a challenge to such admissions are generally taken up by the High Court as promptly as possible but even then, students who are wrongly admitted finish one or two semesters of the course by the time the decision of the High Court is pronounced. A further appeal to this Court consumes still more time, which creates further difficulties in adjusting equities between students who are wrongly admitted and those who are unjustly excluded. Inevitably, the Court has to rest content with and academic pronouncement of the true legal position. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get into an educational institution by means, fair or foul Once you are in, no one will put you out. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get into an educational institution by means, fair or foul Once you are in, no one will put you out. Laws delays work their wonders in such diverse fashions. 5. We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities of educational institutions of various States to indulge in violating the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the Courts will leave the admissions intact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the rules and regulations. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Some day, not distant, if admissions are quashed for the reason that they were made wrongly, it will have to be directed that the names of students who are wrongly admitted should be removed from the rolls of the institution...." "Again in Gurdeep Singh v. State of J& K, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 188., it was observed : "12. What remains to be considered is whether the selection of respondent 6 should be quashed. We are afraid, unduly lenient view of the Courts on the basis of human consideration in regard to such excesses on the part of the authorities, has served to create an impression that even where an advantage is secured by stratagem and trickery, it could be rationalised in Courts of law. Courts do and should take human and sympathetic view of matters. That is the very essence of justice. But considerations of judicial policy also dictate that a tendency of this kind where advantage gained by illegal means is permitted to be retained will jeopardise the purity of selection process itself; engender cynical disrespect towards the judicial process and in the last analysis embolden errant authorities and candidates into a sense of complacency and impunity that gains achieved by such wrongs could be retained by an appeal to the sympathy of the Court. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of Respondent 6 in the sports category was, on the material placed before us, thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. Such instances reduce the jurisdiction and discretion of Courts into private benevolence. This tendency should be stopped. The selection of Respondent 6 in the sports category was, on the material placed before us, thoroughly unjustified. He was not eligible in the sports category. he would not be entitled on the basis of his marks, to a seat in general merit category. Attribution of eligibility long after the selection process was over, in our opinion, is misuse of power. While we have sympathy for the predicament of Respondent No. 6, it should not lose sight of the fact that the situation is the result of his own making. We think in order to uphold the purity of academic processes, we should quash the selection and admission of Respondent 6. We do so, though, however, reluctantly. 11. Having regard to clear prima facie finding recorded herein above, we direct that admission of respondent No. 4 be suspended with immediate effect till the next date. 12. We give liberty to respondent No. 1 to provisionally and subject to result of this petition fill up the seat, as a result of suspension of admission of respondent No. 4 in accordance with rules, if permissible. We decline prayer for interim admission to the petitioner, as making admission is right of respondent No. 1. after following due procedure Case of the petitioner can, however, be considered by respondent No. 1. in accordance with law alongwith any other eligible candidates. We may also refer to judgment of this Court dated 17.12.2007 in Sahil Mittal v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 14646 of 2007., holding that Sikh minority quota was not available in the State of Punjab. List again on 10.1.2008.