Punjab Engineering College Vs. Sanjay
Gulati & Ors [1983] INSC 46 (20 April 1983)
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
((CJ) PATHAK, R.S.
MUKHARJI, SABYASACHI (J)
CITATION: 1983 SCR (2) 801 1983 SCC (3) 517
1983 SCALE (1)404
ACT:
Justice to students-Admissions made contrary
to Rules and Regulations- Interference by the courts-Adjustment of equities
between students wrongly admitted vis-a-vis students unjustly
excluded-Solution-Creation of supernumerary seats-Beneficiaries should include
non-writ Petitioners who are higher-up in the merit list.
HEADNOTE:
Admissions to the Punjab Engineering College,
Chandigarh for the academic year 1982-83 granted to eight candidates by what is
described as the spot test method, to seven wards of the employees of the
Punjab Engineering College and another were struck down by the Punjab High
Court as in violation of the rules and regulations governing admissions to the
institution. However, the students wrongly admitted were allowed to continue
their studies on humanitarian grounds. Hence the appeals after obtaining
special leave of the Court.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1:1 Since all the sixteen students
wrongly admitted have already completed one or two semesters it will be unjust
to cancel their admission at this stage and to remove their names from the
rolls of the College, and therefore, they must be allowed to continue their
studies as if their admission to the College suffered from no defect or
illegality. [803 F-G] 1:2 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 must 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. On
the other hand, students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the
consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested
persons. [804 B-D-F] 1:3 Law's delays work their wonders in such diverse
fashions with the result that the courts find it difficult to adjust equities
between students who are wrongly admitted and those who are unjustly excluded.
Since by the time the High Court’s take up the matter and finally decide the cases,
students who are 802 wrongly admitted finish one or two semesters of the course
and the courts are regretfully perforced to allow them to continue their
studies. [804 F-G] The court observed that "this situation has emboldened
the erring authorities or 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, which is a most unsatisfactory state of
affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Someday 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." [804 H, 805 A-B] 2:1 The
contention that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased since the State
Government cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by
increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope
up with the additional influx of students cannot be accepted. [805 C-D] 2:2
Those who infringe the rule must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the
deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified. The
best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats
is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made. [805 E-F] The court
directed that 8 seats should be for the students from the Chandigarh list and
the other 8 seats from the General List of students which were prepared for the
academic year 1982-83. [805 G-H]
3. The reservation of the sixteen seats are
not open exclusively to the writ petitioners. The circumstance that they filed
writ petitions in the High Court but others similarly aggrieved did not, will
not justify the granting of admission to them by ignoring those others who were
higher up in the merit list. [806 A-B] [The Court directed the authorities to
fill up the additional vacancies "on the basis of open merit"] State
of Kerala v. Kumari T.P.Roshana, [1979] 2 SCR 974; Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid
Mujib Sehrawardi, [1981] 2 SCR 89; Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and
Ors., [1981] 3 SCR 34, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 3779, 3653-66, 3524-3528, 3054 of 1982 & C.A. No. 4066 of 1983.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment
and Order dated the 14th September, 1982 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
in C.W.P. Nos. 3669, 3706, 3499, 3443, 3498, 3919, 3958, 3525, 3750, 3912,
3572, 3663, 3680, 3731, 3566 & 3750 of 1982 respectively.
803 Kapil Sibbal, R.C. Pathak and Atul C.
Jain for the Appellant in CA. 3779/82, CAs. 3653-67/82 & for the
Respondents in rest of the Appeals.
P.R. Mridul and R.K. Anand for the Appellant
in CAs.
3524-26 of 1982.
Prem Malhotra and Sarva Mitter for the
Appellant in CA.
3527/82.
Rameshwar Dayal for the Appellant in CA.
3528/82.
Mrs. J. Wad for the Appellant in CA. 3054/82.
Randhir Jain for the Intervener.
Wadhwani, A. Minocha, P.C. Khunger, Harbans
Lal, N.K.
Aggarwal for the Appellants in CA. 4065/83
R.K. Jain, P.K. Jain, A.K. Goel, K.K. Mohan, Randhir Jain, P.R. Mridul, Ravi
Kant Chadha and K.B. Rohatgi, for the appearing Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
CHANDRCHUD, CJ. Eight candidates were admitted to the Punjab Engineering
College, Chandigarh for the academic year 1982-83, by what is described as the
"spot test". Their admission has been struck down by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court on the ground that it is contrary to the rules and
regulations governing admissions to the institution. We are of the opinion that
since these students have already completed one or two semesters, it will be
unjust to cancel their admission at this stage and to remove their names from
the rolls of the College. We therefore direct that they will be allowed to
continue their further studies in the College uninterrupted.
By the same standard, even though the
admission of seven wards of the employees of the Punjab Engineering College has
been quashed by the High Court on the ground that such admissions are contrary
to the relevant rules of admission, it will not be fair to cancel their
admission at this stage. They have also, like the eight "spot test" students,
completed either one or two semesters of the academic year 1982-83. They will
be allowed to continue their further tudies in the College uninterrupted.
804 The admission granted to the candidate
Ashok Kumar Kaushik has also been struck down by the High Court, but he too
will be allowed to continue his further studies in the College. We cannot apply
to him a different standard than the one which we have applied to the fifteen
candidates referred to above, who are being allowed to continue their studies
as if their admission to the College suffered from no defect of illegality.
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 must 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 of 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 in 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 Courts as promptly as possible but even then, students who are wrongly
admitted finish one or two semester 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 equites between
students who are wrongly admitted and those who are unjustly excluded.
Inevitably, the Court has to rest content with an 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.
Law's delays work their wonders in such diverse fashions.
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
Court will leave the admissions in fact, even if the admissions are 805 granted
contrary to the rules and regulations, This is a most unsatisfactory state of
affairs. Laws are meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Someday, 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 roll of the institution. We might have been justified in
adopting this course in this case itself, but we thought that we may utter a
clear warning before taking that precipitate step. We have decided,
regretfully, to allow the aforesaid sixteen students to continue their studies,
despite the careful and weighty finding of the High Court that at least eight
of them, namely, the seven wards of employees and Ashok Kumar Kaushik, were
admitted to the Engineering Course in violation of the relevant rules and
regulations.
It is strange that in all such cases, the
authorities who make admissions by ignoring the rules of admission contend that
the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government
cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the
number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the
additional influx of students. An additional plea available in regard to
Medical Colleges is that the Indian Medical Conucil will not sanction
additional seats. We cannot entertain this submission. Those who infringe the
rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who
ought to have been admitted has to be rectified. The best solution under the
circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in
proportion to the wrong admissions made.
Since in this case eight students, and
perhaps sixteen were wrongly admitted, we direct that over and above sanctioned
strength for the next academic year commencing in July 1983, sixteen additional
seats shall be created, to which sixteen students shall be admitted to the
Punjab Engineering College from the lists which were prepared for the 1982-83
academic year. These sixteen seats shall be apportioned in an equal measure
between the local students belonging to Chandigarh and the general group of
students belonging to areas outside Chandigarh. That is to say, eight students
will be admitted from the Chandigarh List of students and eight from the
General List of students, which were prepared for the last academic year, viz,
1982-83.
806 The only question which survives is
whether the sixteen writ petitioners should be admitted to those sixteen seats
or whether admission to those seats should be strictly in accordance with
merit. We are unable to accept the submission made by the petitioners that they
should be preferred for admission irrespective of merit. The circumstance that
they filed writ petitions in the High Court but others similarly aggrieved did
not, will not, justify the granting of admission to them by ignoring those
others who were higher up in the merit list.
When a similar question arose before this
Court in State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana,(1) the Court directed the
State Government to admit thirty more students.
Krishna Iyer, J. observed:
"The selection of these 30 students will
not be confined to those who have moved this Court or the High Court by way of
writ proceedings or appeal. The measure is academic excellence, not litigative
persistence. It will be thrown open to the first 30, strictly according to
merit measured by marks secured." In Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib
Sehravardi, (2) the State Government the College, and the Society which was
running the College, all agreed before this Court that the best fifty students
out of those who had applied for admission for the academic year 1979-80 and
who had failed to secure admission, would be granted admission for the academic
year 1981-82 and that the seats allocated to them would be in addition to the
normal intake of students in the College. In Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and
Kashmir & Others,(3) after allowing the writ petitions of candidates who
were wrongly denied admission to the Medical Colleges, it was observed by one
of us Pathak, J., that:
"The candidates who will be displaced in
consequence have already completed a few months of study and in order to avoid
serious prejudice and detriment to their careers it is hoped that the State
Government will deal sympathetically with their cases so that while effect is
807 given to the judgment of this Court the rules may be suitably relaxed, if
possible by a temporary increase in the number of seats, in order to
accommodate the displaced candidates." The authorities were directed by
this Court to fill up the additional vacancies "on the basis of open
merit." Following these decisions, we direct that admission to the 16
additional vacancies for the academic year 1983-84 shall be made in accordance
with merit on the basis of the lists which were prepared for the academic year
1982-83 for the Chandigarh group of students and the general group of students.
We must add that though we are satisfied that
the admission of seven wards of employees of the College and of Ashok Kumar
Kaushik is contrary to the rules and regulations, we have not examined the
correctness of the finding of the High Court in regard to the alleged
illegality of the admission of the eight students who were admitted by the test
of "spot selection". We will only reiterate as to this latter class of
admissions that the conduct of the authorities charged with the duty of making
admissions to educational institutions has to be above suspicion. They cannot
play with the lives and careers of the young aspirants who, standing at the
threshold of life, look to the future with hope and expectations.
The appeals will stand disposed of in
accordance with this order.
Back
