Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1306 (PNJ)

Rajiv Chugh v. Punjab University

2010-03-26

PERMOD KOHLI

body2010
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. The Punjab University issued Prospectus for admission to LL.B (Three years) Course and various other Courses for the academic session 2009-2010. The petitioner applied for admission to LL.B. (Three years) Course. Entrance test for admission to LL.B. (Three years) Course was held on 30.5.2009. The petitioner participated in the test and was placed at Sr. No. 292 in the merit list. The selection criteria for admission was also notified at page 84 of the Prospectus which provides as under :- "50% of 200 (100 Marks for Qualifying Examination); and 50% of 200 (100 Marks for Entrance Examination)". 2. After the combined merit was prepared, the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 371 of the merits list. As many as 404 seats were notified for open as well reserved categories and 27 seats for Foreign National/PIO/N.R.I. Counseling for LL.B. started on 15.7.2009 for both General and Reserved Categories. On completion of the counseling, all the 404 vacancies have been filed up with closing of admissions on 10.9.2009, expect 27 NRI seats which remained unfilled on a account of non-availability of the candidates from this category. The petitioner who seems to be taken to seek admission to the LL.B (Three years) Course has filed this petition challenging Condition No. 1 at page 160 of the Handbook of Information and Rules for Admission, 2009 of the Punjab University which prohibits the conversion of N.R.I. seats to General Category and has also sought direction for conversion of 27 seats of Foreign National/PIO/N.R.I. to Open Category and for admission of the candidates from General Category on the basis of their merit. The conditions for admission under the N.R.I. quota as notified in the Prospectus read as under :- "(b) Foreign National/N.R.I. candidates seeking admission to the concerned course are required to compete amongst themselves for the seats for them by appearing in the Entrance Test if they are in India. Those living abroad will be required to produce the test Scores of : Scholastioc Aptitude Test-II (SAT II) with permissible combination of subjects conducted by the Educational Testing Service, Princeton, USA, for admission to under graduate courses. Graduate Record Examination (General) (GRE) from Princeton, USA, for admission to post Graduate Courses. Further : 1. Seats in this category shall not be allowed to be converted into open category. Graduate Record Examination (General) (GRE) from Princeton, USA, for admission to post Graduate Courses. Further : 1. Seats in this category shall not be allowed to be converted into open category. Applications who fail to get admission in the general category shall be eligible to compete for the seat in the N.R.I. category provided the candidate give in writing his option for N.R.I. category during the counseling for general category self, subject to fulfillment of other requirements\rules for admission in this category. This admission will be made in the NRI category on the basis of combined (i.e. including those who applied earlier and those who gives the option at the time of general counseling) merit list of this category." 3. Conditional No. 1 clearly provides that the seat shall not allowed to be converted into open category. Plea raised by the petitioner is that the N.R.I. seats are within the total prescribed intake capacity of the University and no additional or extra infrastructure including teaching staff is needed. It is further contended that allowing 27 seats to remain vacant would not serve any public purpose nor would are keen to acquire professional education would be deprived of acquiring the qualification despite their merit, it is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that the very object of creating N.R.I. seats was to generate funds for the University and keeping seats unfilled would deprive the University of funds which could otherwise be put to its kitty by offering the seats to General category candidates. It is further contended that if these seats are allowed to be filed up from general Category candidates, University will not have to expand any infrastructure, teaching staff etc., the seats being part of its over all management and within the frame of the University curriculum. 4. The contention of the petitioner is seriously opposed by the respondent- University. In the affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University, it is stated that the N.R.I. seats in all disciplines are not part of the sanctioned strength of the University, expect for the BDS Course where such seats are included in the sanctioned intake capacity of the University/College. The contention of the petitioner is seriously opposed by the respondent- University. In the affidavit filed by the Registrar of the University, it is stated that the N.R.I. seats in all disciplines are not part of the sanctioned strength of the University, expect for the BDS Course where such seats are included in the sanctioned intake capacity of the University/College. By referring to Condition No. 1 at page 160 of the Handbook of Information and Rules for Admission, 2009, it is contended that there is specific embargo for conversion of these seats to General Category and thus, it is not permissible to convert these seats and make admission from general pool. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant stipulation in the Prospectus. Though the reading of Condition No. 1 is itself confusing however, there is a stipulation that these N.R.I. seats shall not be allowed to be converted in General Category. Later part of the condition permits the General Category candidates to compete for seats in N.R.I. category, provided an option is given in writing during the course of counselling, subject to fulfillment of other requirement/rules for admission in this category. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner opted for N.R.I. Category during the course of the counselling. Thus, the second part of Condition No. 1 will not in any manner come to the rescue of the petitioner to create any right for seeking admission under the N.R.I. Category. The affidavit of the Registrar specifically states that these seats are not part of the sanctioned strength of the course and are not over and above the prescribed intake capacity, expect in the BDS course. N.R.I. seats were in fact created initially under the orders of the Honble Supreme Court. While dealing with the issue relating to filling up of the N.R.I. seats, Honble Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar and other v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2005(3) S.C.T. 697 : 2005 (6) SCC 537 observed as under :- "131. Here itself we are not inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for non-resident Indians (`N.R.I., for short) or N.R.I. seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. Here itself we are not inclined to deal with the question as to seats allocated for non-resident Indians (`N.R.I., for short) or N.R.I. seats. It is common knowledge that some of the institutions grant admissions to certain number of students under such quota by charging a higher amount of fee. In fact the term `N.R.I. in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court, neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their parents are N.R.I.s. In effect and reality, under this category, less meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get admission. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out that a limited number of such seats should be made available as the money brought by such students admitted against N.R.I. quota enables the educational institutions to strengthen its level of education and also to enlarge its level of education and also to enlarge its educational activities. It was also pointed out that people of Indian origin, who have migrated to other countries, have a desire to bring back their children to their own country as they not only get reunited with Indian cultural ethos by virtue of being here. They also wish the money which they children should rather reach their own motherland. A limited reservation of such seats, not exceeding 15% in our opinion, may be made available to N.R.I.s depending on the discretion of the management subject to two conditions. First, such seats should be utilized bonafide by the N.R.I.s only and for their children or wards. Secondly, within this quota, the merit should not be given a complete go-by. The amount of money, in whatever form collected from such N.R.I.s, should be utilized for benefiting students such as form economically weaker sections of the societies, whom on well defined criteria, the educational institution may admit on subsidized payment of their fee. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to N.R.I. quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as the State does not do it will be for the Committees constituted pursuant to Islamic Academys direction to regulate. (Emphasis supplied)" 6. The observations of the Honble Supreme Court regarding N.R.I. seats are clear. To prevent misutilisation of such quota or any malpractice referable to N.R.I. quota seats, suitable legislation or regulation needs to be framed. So long as the State does not do it will be for the Committees constituted pursuant to Islamic Academys direction to regulate. (Emphasis supplied)" 6. The observations of the Honble Supreme Court regarding N.R.I. seats are clear. The object and purport of N.R.I. seats is to provide opportunity to Non- Resident Indians to unite their children with Indian culture and to explore the possibility of their return to India at some stages or at seats to keep a bone of the country if their origin. The clear indication in the aforesaid judgment is that seats should be utilizes for bona fide N.R.I.s. their children/wards. Is this laudable and well thought of purpose, Condition No. 1 has been incorporated in the Prospectus. In any case, Prospectus also achieves the status of a binding law and should not be casually and lightly interfered with. I find no valid reason to struck down the condition in the Prospectus merely because there are desirous candidates to seek admission against the N.R.I. seats by offering more fees or they are likely to be selected, in the event the seats are converted to General Category. Conversion of such seats is impermeable. No relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. 7. In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.