Summary
For admission to B.E. Course (1989-90 Session) in the appellant Institute and 3 other institutes, there was a Combined Entrance Test held by the Punjab University. The results were declared, and students allotted to the respec- tive institutes of their choice. The appellantInstitute drew up merit list of candidates allotted to it and gave admis- sions in that order.
To fill up the vacant seats as a result of some students leaving the Institute, the appellant-Institute held inter- views on 14.8.1989, which incidentally was the last date for admission to B.E. Course. However, the last date was extend- ed up to 25.5.1989. When admission was closed on that day, the last student admitted was at S. No. 1127 in the merit list prepared by the University.Respondents 1 to 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court on 30.8.1989, alleging that six seats were vacant and the appellantInstitute be directed to admit them. The High Court on 21.9.1989 allowed the writ petition on the assump- tion that six seats were vacant, whereas only 2 seats were available, according to the appellantInstitute.Respondents 5 to 8B also approached the High Court by way of writ petitions and the High Court directed the appel- lant-Institute to admit the six Respondents also in the B.E.Course. Further, three other similar writ petitions were pending before the High Court.395 Against the above-said orders of the High Court, the appellantInstitute has preferred these appeals contending that the last candidate admitted was at S. No. 1127 in the merit list and admittedly all the Respondents except Re- spondent No. 6 were less meritorious, while candidates with higher merits were still waiting for admission. It was contended that while there were only 2 vacant seats, the High Court has directed the appellant-Institute to admit as many as ten candidates, that too long after the course started and the First Terminal Exams were over.Dismissing the appeals, this Court,HELD: 1.1 The High Court not only ignored the fact which was specifically pointed out in the appellant-Institute's affidavit that there were no seats available in the appel- lant-Institute whose capacity was only 180 seats, but also the fact that there were more meritorious students than the Respondents as per the Combined Entrance Test, who could not secure admission and who were waiting to he admitted to the appellant-Institute. The Respondent-students could get admission to the appellant-Institute only if theft compara- tive merits ordained it and not otherwise. They could claim no merit over other meritorious students merely because they had approached the Court for securing admission. In fact, in their writ petitions before the High Court, the respondent- students had claimed no further relief than that they should be directed to be admitted according to their merit. [399B-E]1.2 There was nothing wrong in the appellant-Institute admitting 10 more students in B.E. Course. The Institute has a capacity of only 180 students. To meet the contingency of the students leaving it soon after admission the appellant- Institute had admitted 10 more students as has been done every year. As it turned out, 12 of the students left leav- ing 178 students on the roll, with only 2 vacancies. The High Court could have directed only two students to be admitted and that too on merit. Admittedly, there were more meritorious students than the respondents, waiting in queue.The High Court thus travelled beyond its jurisdiction and not only directed more students than the Institute could absorb but also students who were less meritorious to he admitted. No reasons whatsoever have been given by the High Court for exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction so peremptorily which has resulted in injustice both to the appellant-Institute as well as to the students who stood higher in merit than almost all the respondentstudents except Respondent No. 6.[399E-H]396 2. Since, however, the respondent-students stand already admitted, and the more meritorious students cannot now avail of the seats given to the respondents due to lapse of time, their pursuit of the course is not interfered with. [400A]See the full content of this document
Extract
Thapar Institute Of Engineering Andtechnology, Patiala (Dee VS. Abhinav Taneja And Ors.
PETITIONER: THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING ANDTECHNOLOGY, PATIALA (DEEM Vs.RESPONDENT: ABHINAV TANEJA AND ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1990BENCH: SAWANT, P.B.BENCH: SAWANT, P.B.SHETTY, K.J. (J)SHARMA, L.M. (J)CITATION: 1990 AIR 1222 1990 SCR (2) 394 1990 SCC (3) 468 JT 1990 (3) 72 1990 SCALE (1)37ACT: Constitution of India, 1950.' Article 226--High Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction--Not to exercise peremptorily, without giving reasons.Admission to professional institutions.' B.E.Course--admissions ---Writ Petitions by some candida...
See the full content of this document