Petitioner challenging non-selection in B.Ed. Exservicemen category despite higher merit. Court held admission barred due to late production of mandatory certificate and violation of earlier cut-off date.
Petitioner's claim for direction to admit her to the B.Ed. course is dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP No.17510 of 2009 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Date of decision: 09.02.2010
Miss Jyoti Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
Present: Mr.MK Mittal, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr.Anurag Goyal,Advocate,for the respondents. Mrs.SK Hooda, Principal of Respondent No.3, in person.
PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral):
Pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure P-1) issued in the Dainik Jagran for inviting applications for admission to B.Ed. Course in various colleges in the State of Haryana, the petitioner submitted her application. She claimed admission in Exservicemen category. The petitioner participated in the counselling held on 12.10.2009. A panel of selectees was prepared in which two candidates, namely, Bhagwan Dev and Mamta, were selected, in respondent No.3 College under the category of Ex-servicemen. The petitioner has higher merit than these two selectees. The petitioner has 68.62 per cent marks in the qualifying examination whereas the aforesaid two candidates have 50.25% and 46.58% marks respectively. The petitioner served a legal notice for her non selection. Pursuant to the legal notice of the petitioner, respondent No.3 college prepared a fresh panel in which the name of the petitioner was included at serial
CWP No.17510 of 2009 2
No.1 on the basis of merit along with one Mamta who was next in the merit. It is stated that despite including the name of the petitioner in the select panel, she has not been admitted to the course in question. The petitioner accordingly filed this petition seeking a direction for her admission to B.Ed. Course. The petitioner has also challenged the admissions granted to the above mentioned persons allegedly by adopting a pick and choose policy.
On being put to notice, the University has filed its detailed reply in Court today itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner after going through the reply filed in the Court today has argued the matter.
The stand of the College is that respondent No.3-College had advertised two vacant pots of ESM/Freedom Fighter category. It is further stated that the advertisement was published in Hindi newspaper on 09.10.2009. It is further stated that the petitioner had not attached the certificate of ex-serviceman/dependent of exserviceman. It is further stated that during counselling the petitioner did not even produce the original Ex-serviceman certificate. Therefore, the petitioner could not be admitted. It is, however, admitted that letter written by the Principal of the College to the University on 15.10.2009 which was received by the University on 19.10.2009 whereby the petitioner was shown to have been selected. It is, however, stated that on account of the direction of this Court, no admission could be made after 12.10.2009.
CWP No.17510 of 2009 3
Respondent No.3 who was served, chose not to appear. Hence vide order dated 17.12.2009 a fresh notice was issued to her to cause her appearance to know the version of respondent No.3 regarding the admission. Principal of respondent No.3-College is present in person today in Court. She has also brought the record of selection i.e. Minutes of the counselling held on 12.10.2009 under the ESM category. Against the name of the petitioner, the following remarks are mentioned:
“No proper dependent certificate”.
A Xerox copy of the minutes/proceedings of the counselling is placed on record. Original record has been returned to the Principal after perusal. Though no formal reply has been fled by respondent No.3, however, the Principal has stated that since the petitioner did not produce the ESM certificate, she could not be included in the panel. Subsequently, when the petitioner produced the ESM certificate and after legal notice, another penal was forwarded to the University.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The admissions were permitted by this Court vide judgment
dated 17.09.2009 to fill up the available vacant seats by issuing advertisement in two newspapers; one in English and one in vernacular. In the aforesaid order, all the colleges were permitted to hold counselling from 08.10.2009 to 12.10.2009. It has been specifically mentioned that no admissions shall be made by any college thereafter notwithstanding availability of seats in the college in the State of
CWP No.17510 of 2009 4
Haryana. From the minutes/record of proceedings it appears that the petitioner could not be selected for non-production of ESM certificate within the time prescribed though she was higher in the merit in the said category. Any document produced thereafter is of no consequence.
In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner was rightly denied the admission to the course in question.
At this stage, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that two seats are still lying vacant and the petitioner may be admitted/adjusted to the course.
In view of the clear and categoric directions issued in CWP No.11272 of 2009 and other connected cases no admissions can be made after cut off date. Otherwise also, the course is to be completed within 180 days. If the petitioner is admitted to the course in question, it may not be possible at this belated stage to complete the course in question.
In view of the above, present writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
09.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE
Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES/ NO
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner could be admitted to the B.Ed. course after the cut-off date despite being higher in merit.
Whether documents produced after the prescribed deadline for counselling would be accepted for selection.
Miss Jyoti
Maharishi Dayanand University
others
Principal of Respondent No.3
Permod Kohli
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
