Sukhninder Singh v. Pec University of Technology, Chd.

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2009CWP/11166/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of admission due to non-production of GATE score card. Noting discriminatory treatment versus other candidates, the court directed the university to accept documents by a specific date and admit the petitioner to a reserved seat immediately.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file undertaking for document production by 15.09.2009; petitioner admitted against a reserved seat in Mechanical Engineering immediately.

Sukhninder Singh Vs Pec University of… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

CWP No.11166 of 2009 -1-

¶2

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

¶3

Date of decision: 20.08.2009

¶4

Sukhwinder Singh Vs. PEC University of Technology,Chandigarh.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI.

¶6

Present: Mr.SS Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Naveender PK Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶7

PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral)

¶8

The petitioner passed Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from the University Institute of Engineering and Technology at Panjab University, Chandigarh in the year 2009 by securing 73.21 percent marks. He applied for the Post Graduate Course in Mechanical Engineering and appeared in the Graduate Aptitude Test (GATE-2009) held by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee on behalf of Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India. The petitioner secured All India Rank 63 with percentile score of 95.24. The Punjab Engineering College, a Deemed University offers masters degree in Engineering of two years duration. The eligibility criteria as notified by the respondent-University for admission to the masters degree course was merit in the GATE examination. The petitioner applied for admission to the course aforesaid. He was placed at serial No.6 in the merit list prepared by the respondent. Total general seats were 19. The petitioner was summoned for counselling

¶9

CWP No.11166 of 2009 -2-

¶10

on 23.07.2009. He participated in the counselling. During the course of the counselling, the petitioner was asked to produce the original GATE Score Card. The petitioner requested for time to produce the same. However, the petitioner was not granted time and the admission granted to the petitioner has been cancelled. The petitioner is aggrieved of the aforesaid action of the respondent-University and has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is specifically mentioned that the respondent has granted time to other similarly situated candidates to produce the original certificate by 15.09.2009. However, in the case of the petitioner, this relaxation has not been allowed.

¶11

Notice of motion was issued. The respondent has filed its reply and relied upon para 7 of the Important Points contained in the Brochure issued by the respondent-University which, inter-alia, provides that all original documents shall be produced at the time of counselling and no opportunity shall be provided to produce the same at a later stage and selection shall stand automatically cancelled and the vacancy shall be offered to the next candidate in the merit.

¶12

Today, the petitioner has placed on record the information received under the Right to Information Act in respect to the selectees. He also produced undertakings obtained from various candidates for production of the various documents by 15.09.2009. In the case of one Arvind Kulashri son of Naresh Chandra Kulashri who also sought admission in Mechanical Engineering was granted time to produce the Migration Certificate and Detailed Mark Sheets of 3^rd , 5^th , 6^th , 7^th and 8^th semesters upto 15.09.2009. This clearly establishes that the respondent is adopting different yardsticks in the matter of providing opportunity to

¶13

CWP No.11166 of 2009 -3-

¶14

produce the original documents. On the one hand, most of the selectees have been given time to produce original documents and to the contrary, petitioner's admission cancelled by denying similar opportunity.

¶15

However, without commenting on the validity of para 7 of the Important Points mentioned in the Brochure, at this stage, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to accept the documents of the petitioner by 15.09.2009 for which the petitioner shall file an undertaking within two days before the respondent on the same analogy as other students admitted to the course.

¶16

In view of the interim order passed by this Court on 10.08.2009, the respondent was directed to keep one seat reserved in the ME (Mechanical). The petitioner is definitely in the merit. Let he be admitted against the reserved seat forthwith and be allowed to attend the classes. The petitioner shall be entitled to opt for the subjects for which he has been selected.

¶17

20.08.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE

¶18

Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO

Sukhninder Singh v. Pec University of Technology, Chd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhninder Singh v. Pec University of Technology, Chd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Micky Samyal Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Swami Devi Dyal Hi Tech Education Adademy Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurdeep Singh and Ors. Vs Director, Rural Development & Panchayats & Anr.

Mahima Kaul Vs Union of India and Anr.

Chhinder Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Gulyani and Anr. Vs Financial Commissioner Cum Pri. Secy. Haryana&Ors.