Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1041 (PNJ)

Kamaldeep v. Panjab University, Chandigarh

2013-08-13

Rakesh Kumar Jain

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The petitioner is seeking a direction to respondent No.2 for his admission in the LLB (3 year course) in the Session 2013-14. 2. The case set up by the petitioner is that he applied for LLB Course in physically handicapped (PH) category through online application and was issued “provisional E-Admit card for Entrance Test PU-LLB (3 year) 2013”. He appeared in the entrance test held on 23.6.2013 and secured 439 rank. There were 12 seats in the PH category out of which six seats were in the morning session and 6 seats in the evening session. The petitioner was at serial No.4 in the merit in PH category and being a government servant preferred the evening session. Respondent No.2 pasted a notice on the notice board of the department for the schedule of counseling. The relevant portion of the notice extracted from the petition, reads thus: - “Interview for admission of candidate for the numbers of the seats as mentioned below and to have a provisional waiting list will be held on 15.7.2013 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM (with lunch break from 1:30 PM to 2:30 PM). For claiming admission under reserve category, the candidate has to appear in the counseling for reserve category also fixed for 17.7.2013 and 18.7.2013 from 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM. The sports category candidates have to appear in the counseling on 19.7.2013 from 9:30 AM to 12:00 Noon.” 3. As per the notice and schedule, counseling was to be held on 17th and 18th July 2013 (Wednesday & Thursday) and the list of final selected candidates was to be affixed by 19.7.2013 (Friday) and the fee was also to be deposited on the same day. 4. It is averred in the petition that counseling of the petitioner was held on 18.7.2013 (Thursday) and on 19.7.2013 (Friday) he was present through out the day through his representative before lunch and himself after lunch but final list of selected candidates was not affixed and accordingly no fee was deposited by any candidate. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 for depositing the fee on the next working day i.e. 22.7.2013 (Monday), assuming Saturday (20.7.2013) and Sunday (21.7.2013) to be holidays. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 for depositing the fee on the next working day i.e. 22.7.2013 (Monday), assuming Saturday (20.7.2013) and Sunday (21.7.2013) to be holidays. He came to know that respondent No.2 had already affixed the list of selected candidates on Saturday (i.e. 20.7.2013) and also accepted fee and the seat of the petitioner was given to respondent No.3, who was in the waiting list at serial No.1. The petitioner represented to respondent No.2 on 22.7.2013 but to no avail. 5. In reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 that the list of all the 12 candidates was affixed on the notice board of the department on 19.7.2013 out of which 10 students deposited their fee on 20.7.2013 but since the petitioner did not confirm it to deposit the fee within stipulated day and time, he forfeited his right to get admission after the closing of working hours on 20.7.2013. It is also averred that the petitioner has wrongly assumed that 20.7.2013 (Saturday) was holiday as it was clearly mentioned in the Handbook of Information 2013 that “Saturday is working during admission days” and even the Department of Laws of the University affixed a notice on 19.6.2013 in which it was clearly mentioned that “payment of fee by the selected candidates of all reserved categories for admission to Ist Semester of LL.B for both morning and evening session…..19.7.2013 (Friday) (9:30 am to 1.00 P.M.) and fee for all remaining categories shall be deposited on 20.7.2013”. 6. It is averred in the notice, displayed on the notice board of the department that “candidates who failed to deposit the fee on the date and time specified in the schedule for admission, shall have no claim for admission, whatsoever..” 7. It is also alleged that since the petitioner failed to deposit required fee on the stipulated date and time had forfeited his right of admission and respondent No.3, who was in the waiting list, was informed about this fact and called upon to deposit the fee. 8. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit in which he has alleged the 12th seat has been given to one Billu, who was not even in the list of any of the categories of the provisional merit list of 1509 candidates. 9. 8. The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit in which he has alleged the 12th seat has been given to one Billu, who was not even in the list of any of the categories of the provisional merit list of 1509 candidates. 9. In this regard, learned counsel for the University has submitted that on 22.7.2013, a meeting was held of the Board of Control, in which the application moved by the petitioner was considered and it was observed that since he failed to deposit the fee on the prescribed date his request cannot be accepted. It was also decided that since one seat is lying vacant under the PH category, the application of Billu therefore was considered as late applicant and after verification of his documents, it was resolved to recommend his admission in LL.B Ist semester under PH category. It is also submitted that the decision for giving admission to Billu was taken in view of the decision of the Board of Control pertaining to the “late applicant” in terms of Rule 23 which provides that admission to the late applicants can be given if his merit falls in the first 25% of the applicants admitted in the open/reserved category. The said decision of the Board of control is reproduced as under: - “The department has one seat vacant for admission to LL.B Ist semester session 2013-14 under Physically Handicapped category. As per Rule 23 at page 219 of Hand Book of Information 2013 before putting the waiting list on the notice board the late applicants are to be considered. The admission of Billu under Physically Handicapped category was recommended by the Board of Control. He submitted an application in the department that he may be considered as late applicant. As per Rule 23 at page 219 of Hand Book of Information 2013 before putting the waiting list on the notice board the late applicants are to be considered. The admission of Billu under Physically Handicapped category was recommended by the Board of Control. He submitted an application in the department that he may be considered as late applicant. Since one seat under Physically Handicapped category are lying vacant at present, the Board of Control in its meeting held on 22.7.2013 resolved to consider him as late applicant under Rule 23 at page 219 of the Handbook of Information 2013 which is reproduced below: - Rule 23: Admission for Late applicants with high merit is reproduced below: “Before considering candidates placed on waiting list for admission, a Board of Control or Admission Committee or Joint Admission Cell may admit a late applicant in the open /reserve category for sufficient cause with the prior approval of the DUI/VC, but only if his her/merit falls in the merit of the first 25% of the applicants admitted in the open/reserved category. Late admission shall not be allowed where: - iii) No seats are available; iv) the last date of admission as prescribed by the University is over. As per the requirement of the above said rule, prior approval of DUI/VC is required in this regard. The Board resolved to recommend the admission of Billu in LL.B. Ist semester under Physically Handicapped category as late applicant as per university rules. The admission form of the candidate is being sent herewith. Submitted for approval of the DUI/VC, please.” 10. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has also submitted that the petitioner could still be considered for admission if any of the students admitted in his category failed to attend minimum 33 % lectures in the first 10 days in the class as per University regulations. 11. Respondent No.3 has also filed his separate reply in which he has alleged that he is a 100% disabled and wheel-chair bound person. On 22.7.2013, he was informed on telephone around 10:30 am by respondent No.2 that one seat in PH category is vacant and if he is interested, he may deposit the fee. He deposited the fee by 11:15 am and thereafter he is attending classes without any absence in the evening session. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. He deposited the fee by 11:15 am and thereafter he is attending classes without any absence in the evening session. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. From the resume of the facts, the petitioner cannot be permitted to agitate that he could not deposit the fee on 20.7.2013 as he was under the impression that Saturday was not working day in the University for the purpose of admission whereas, it has been specifically mentioned in the Handbook of Information 2013 that ‘Saturday is working during admission days’. The petitioner, who wanted to take admission in the Department of Laws, is expected to have read all the relevant instructions in the Handbook of Information 2013. Moreover, in the notice, which was displayed and attached by the petitioner as Annexure P-5, it is categorically mentioned that if a candidate fails to deposit the fee on the date and time specified in the schedule for admission, shall have no claim for admission, whatsoever. Thus, the door of the University was finally closed for the petitioner when he failed to deposit the requisite fee on 20.7.2013 along with other 10 students and for that matter he cannot blame respondent No.2. 14. Insofar as admission of respondent No.3 is concerned, since there were two seats available after 20.7.2013 and respondent No.3 was at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list, he was rightly called upon by respondent No.2 to take admission and the 12th seat to Billu has been offered in terms of Rule 23 and as per the decision of the Board of Control, referred to above, as the said candidate was having merit. 15. Even otherwise, once the petitioner has lost his right by not depositing the fee in time, he cannot question the admission of respondent No.3 or Billu, who has been given admission in the category of ‘late applicant’. 16. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion, I could not find any reason to issue a direction as prayed for by the petitioner. However, he still has a chance as stated by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that if a candidate admitted in PH category fails to attend minimum 33% lectures of starting of the classes, admission of the said candidate could be cancelled by the University as per regulations and could be offered to the petitioner. 17. However, he still has a chance as stated by learned counsel for respondent No.2 that if a candidate admitted in PH category fails to attend minimum 33% lectures of starting of the classes, admission of the said candidate could be cancelled by the University as per regulations and could be offered to the petitioner. 17. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed. --------0.B.S.0------------