In these twelve writ petitions (Nos. 9719, 10922, 11185, 11475, 11597, 11674, 11742, 12584, 12591, 12625, 12943 and 13424 all of 1994) the common question raised is whether the admitting educational authorities can insist on possession of eligibility qualifications on the date of admission as expressly laid down in the prospectus. We, therefore, propose to dispose of these writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. To appreciate the question, it will be sufficient to give illustrative facts from CWP No. 10922 of 1994. Sant Longowal Institute of Engineers and Technology (Sangrur) in the State of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Institute’) established by the Government of India, invited applications from eligible candidates throughout the country for admission to a Degree Programme on the basis of merit determined in an entrance test held by the Institute. Candidates who had appeared for the final disploma examination of their respective educational institutions were allowed to apply for admission on the condition that their result of the final year examination was produced at the time fixed for admission. The petitioner applied for admission. He appeared in the entrance test. This was subject to the petitioner producing result of the qualifying examination at the time of admission. The result of qualifying examination having not been declared by the date fixed for admission to the Institute, the petitioner was denied admission. He filed the aforesaid writ petition. Under interim orders of this Court, the petitioner was given provisional admission as per merit in the entrance test at his own risk and responsibility. Seven other CWP Nos. 11185, 11475, 11597, 11674, 11742, 12584, 12591 and 12625 of 1994 also fall in this category.

3. Written statements have been filed in some of the writ petitions both by the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training responsible for declaring the result of the qualifying diploma examination as well as the Institute. It is not disputed that result of the qualifying examination was not made available up to the completion of admission in question. There is only one exception in the case of the petitioner in CWP No. 12591 of 1994 where result was declared on August 22, 1994, the dated fixed for admission. We shall deal with that case separately.

4. The stand of the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training is that the examination of Diploma Course in question concluded only in August 1994, the number of students being in the vicinity of 10000, the Board was entitled to take a reasonable time to formulate the result and declare the same.

5. The stand of the Institute is that the petitioner having failed to satisfy the condition of eligibility, namely, of having passed the Diploma examination up to the time fixed for admission to the Degree Course, he was not entitled to admission and the candidates who fulfilled the condition of eligibility, though lower in merit on the basis of the entrance test, were entitled to be given admission.

6. Before coming to deal with the second set of writ petitions, we may notice that in CWP No. 11475 of 1994, the Registrar, Board of Technical Education, Delhi Administration, appeared on September 26, 1994, at the time of hearing of these petitions and placed on record a copy of the notification dated September 24, 1994, including the result of the petitioner in that writ petition. According to the result, the petitioner-Deepak Kumar Gupta had passed the 3 Year Diploma Course in Engineering from Pusa Polytechnic, New Delhi, affiliated to the Board of Technical Education, Delhi.

7. The second set of writ petitions (Nos. 12584, 12943 and 13424 of 1994) is of candidates who possessed the prescribed qualification of eligibility, having passed the qualifying Diploma Course during the earlier year/years. Though these candidates were lower in merit in the entrance test compared to the candidates who are petitioners in the group of CWPs first abovementioned, they have staked their claim for admission on the ground that they possessed the condition of eligibility on the date of admission while the candidates falling in the first category did not do so.

8. In the third category comes CWP No. 9719 of 1994, which was filed by Rakesh Kansal and Miss Gagandeep Kaur. Brief facts of that case are that the petitioners therein were studying in Mehar Chand Polytechnic College, Jalandhar, affiliated to the Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training. They appeared in Electronic and Communication Engineering Diploma Course in the final year. It was further averred in the writ petition that the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, introduced a scheme granting admission in the second year of B.Tech/Bachelor of Engineering Degree Course in four different Engineering Colleges in the State of Punjab to provide an opportunity to the Diploma Holders to acquire a Degree on the basis of merit secured in the entrance test known as ‘Lateral Entry Engineering Test-1994’ held on June 5, 1994. The relevant instructions further laid down that the candidate who had appeared/were appearing in the qualifying Diploma Examination during the current session were eligible to appear in the aforesaid entrance test. The petitioners appeared in that test. Petitioner No. 1 belonged to the general category and petitioner No. 2 to the reserved category of scheduled castes. Both the petitioners figured fairly high in the order of merit in the result of entrance test. The date for interview/admission was fixed as August 2, 1994. The result of the final year Diploma Course having not been declared by the Board of Technical Education, the same could not be produced and accordingly the petitioners were denied admission. Hence on that petition notice having been issued, appearance was entered on behalf of the Board of Technical Education as well as the Regional Engineering College, Jalandhar. The petitioners were interviewed on August 2, 1994, under interim directions of this Court dated July 29, 1994. It was conceded by Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel appearing for Regional Engineering College that the petitioners had been interviewed in compliance with the direction of the Court and that Rakesh Kansal petitioner No. 1 in CWP No. 9720 of 1994 and the sole petitioner in CWP No. (sic) figured at serial Nos. 5 and 7 respectively of the general category against eight seats meant to be filled by candidates of the general category. He further conceded that petitioner No. 2 Miss Gagandeep Kaur in CWP No. 9719 of 1994 figured at serial No. 2 out of three reserved seats as a result of the selection process. The writ petition was disposed of the selection process. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioners shall be given admission “at their own risk and responsibility subject to their passing the qualifying examination by securing at least 60 per cent marks as required under the relevant rules.” The writ petition was disposed of by order dated August 4, 1994. Civil Misc. No. 7890 of 1994 has been moved in CWP No. 9719 of 1994 under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reviewing the order dated August 4, 1994, passed in CWP No. 9719 of 1994. The applicants, four in number, have stated that they had passed the qualifying Diploma examination in the year 1992 or 1993 and they satisfied the condition of eligibility. The aforesaid writ petition No. 9719 of 1994 had, however, been filed without impleading the applicants. The order passed in the said writ petition had adversely affected the applicants rights and it was on this basis that they prayed for review of the order disposing of the said writ petition as also for impleading them under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide Civil Misc. No. 7891 of 1994. Notice in both the Civil Misc. applications was given. Counsel for the parties who appeared in the original CWP No. 9719 of 1994, did not want to file any formal reply and they were heard. It will be seen that the provisions relating to admission and eligibility are in pari materia with the provisions in the Prospectus of Sant Longo-wal Institute of Engineering and Technology. This is why the said matter is also being disposed of by this order.

9. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the first set of CWPs are:—

(1) The petitioners have established their superior merit on the basis of the entrance test. They have a right to be admitted on that ground.

(2) Once the result of the qualifying examination is declared, it will relate back to the date of the examination. That being so, the petitioners would satisfy the condition of eligibility.

(3) There was an enabling provision in the Prospectus itself, according to which candidates who had appeared in the final examination of the qualifying Diploma Course were eligible to apply for admission.

(4) The petitioners were entitled to continue on provisional basis unless and until they failed to pass the qualifying examination.

(5) The declaration of result of qualifying examination is not in their hands and the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for delay over which they have no control.

(6) Prescribing of a cut-off date for passing the qualifying examination can be justified only if it is shown to bear a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved and the avowed object is to select most meritorious from amongst the candidates. If the fixing of the cut-off date operates so as to exclude persons of higher merit, such a cut off date must be held to be bad in law.

(7) In CWP No. 11475 of 1994 the Assistant Registrar (Administration) had by his Memo dated August 22, 1994, Annexure P-3 filed in the said CWP, had permitted Deepak Kumar Gupta to produce the result of the qualifying examination after the date of admission. In other words, the Institute itself did not stick to the aforesaid cut-off date.

10. Mr. Parminder Pal Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Institute, has controverted each one of these contentions. He further submitted that the result of entrance test was intimated to the candidates individually and they were also informed to appear on August 22, 1994, to finalise the question of admissions. He pointed out that as per the Prospectus the classes were due to commence from August 31, 1994 and, in fact, the classes so commenced. The date of admission was fixed just one week before the commencement of the classes. He referred to Amardeep Singh Sahota v. The State of Punjab, 1993 (2) PLR 212, in which the Full Bench had approved the law laid down by a Division Bench of the Court in Randeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, ILR (1985) 1 P & H 343, laying down that eligibility for admission to a Course had to be seen according to the Prospectus issued before the entrance examination and that the instructions given in the Prospectus had the force of law. He further submitted that acquisition of eligibility after the date fixed for the purpose was of no consequence. He also urged that the Courts were always loath to interfere in the method adopted by the academic institutions for admission unless there was a clear case of breach of any law established. He sought to distinguish the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners mainly on the ground that those decisions had been rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of those cases and were not intended to lay down any rule of general application. He further submitted that letter Annexure P-3 filed in CWP No. 11475 of 1994 did not have the effect of extending the date for the production of the result of the final year of Diploma Course examination by August 22, 1993, and, in any case, that petition along with others was also still pending and that the petitioner therein-had not been granted admission by the Institute on the ground that he had acquired the necessary eligibility after the expiry Of the date fixed, namely, August 22, 1994. The issuance of the letter by the Assistant Registrar (Administration) was, therefore, of no consequence. Learned counsel for the second set of writ petitions supported the contentions of Mr. Parminder Pal Singh.

11. We have carefully considered the respective contentions and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

12. The conditions of eligibility and method of admission are laid down in the Prospectus. The method of admission is on the basis of merit in the entrance test as per details given in Appendix-1 to the Prospectus. With regard to eligibility, para 2.4 lays down as under:—

“The following category of candidates shall be eligible for admission in a degree programne.

1. Diploma holders of SLIET in the above mentioned disciplines.

2. Diploma holders of polytechnics affiliated with the State Board of Technical Education in the above mentioned disciplines.

3. Diploma holders of all the institutions approved by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in the above mentioned discipline.

4. B.Sc with mathematics, physics and chemistry from a recognised University.

Para. 3.3 further lays down as follows:—

“Qualifying Examinations and Eligibility.

The eligibility conditions for admission to degree programme is given in Section 2.4 Candidates appearing in the qualifying examination before July, 1994 may be considered provisionally, subject to production of certificate of their having qualified the qualifying examination at the time of admission.”

13. A reading of the above provisions shows that candidates appearing in the qualifying examination before July, 1994 were to be considered provisionally subject to the production of certificate of their having qualified the qualifying examination at the time of admission. The date of admission in the present case was August 22, 1994. Except in one case, the admitted position is that the result of the qualifying examination of the remaining petitioners in this set was not available on the date of admission. In other words, according to the above provisions of the Prospectus, it was necessary for the candidates to possess the condition of eligibility latest on the date of admission, namely, August 22, 1994.

14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the condition of production of result of the qualifying examination on the date of admission cannot, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, be quashed as arbitrary and illegal. Our reasons for reaching this conclusion follow:

(i) As laid down by the Full Bench in Amardeep Singh Sahota's case (supra) the conditions laid down in the Prospectus constitute, as it were, a Code relating to admission. The candidates are bound by those conditions. Admittedly the petitioners relating to the said group of writ petitions did not possess the condition of eligibility on that date.

(ii) Higher merit, no doubt, deserves to be given preference, but it is subject to eligibility. This point is amply demonstrated by the instance referred to in the written statement filed by the Institute of the candidate who topped in the entrance test but failed in the qualifying examination.

(iii) There is nothing arbitrary in prescribing date of admission as the farthest point of time by which the result of the qualifying examination could be produced. The date prescribed for the classes to commence was August 31, 1994, and it only stands to reason that admissions are finalised before that date. In other words, such a cutoff date could not be later than it is.

(iv) Nor can the State Boards, in the facts and circumstances, be hustled into declaring the result of certain selected candidates. This is apart from the fact that declaration of result after August 22, 1994, the date fixed for admission was of no consequence.

(v) The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioners relating to the first set are clearly distinguishable. These decisions are:—

(1) Raj Kumar v. Punjabi University Patiala, 1991 (1) PLR 598 : AIR 1992 P&H 94; (2) Ku. Sadhana v. Vikram University Ujjain, AIR 1986 MP 181; (3) Tejmohan Singh v. Panjab University, 1992 (1) RSJ 348; (4) Mandeep Singh v. Guru Nanak Dev University, 1990 (2) SLR 280; (5) Ms. Randeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1993 (4) SLR 686; and (6) Miss Bharti Bala v. Guru Nanak Dev Uni., 1994 (1) SLR 73.

In Raj Kumar's case, the question before the Division Bench was whether University Medal was to be awarded on the basis of the reevaluation of marks. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court it was held that reevaluated marks were to be taken into consideration, because otherwise the very purpose of reevaluation which was duly prescribed by the relevant provisions was defeated.

In Ku. Sadhana's case, the candidate was declared successful after reevaluation and the question was of admission to the next higher class. It was held that his application could not be rejected on the ground that last date for admission had expired.

In Tejmohan Singh's case, the candidate could not appear on the date fixed for admission. He appeared later when admissions were still going on and attributed a plausible reason for not being able to appear on a particular date. Having regard to the consideration of higher merit being preferred and in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was directed that the candidate be interviewed and given admission as per his merit. The learned single Judge expressly made it clear that he did not intend to lay down a rule of general application. He suggested that a mechanicism be evolved to deal with such cases.

In Mandeep Singh's case, admission to LL.B Course was prepared on the basis of entrance examination. The petitioner was, however, denied admission on the ground that the result of his previous examination was not declared before the date fixed for admission on account of non-finalisation of unfair means case by the Standing Committee. In the peculiar facts of that case, a learned single Judge directed the University to grant admission to those who were entitled to be admitted according to merit by creating additional seats. We do not find any discussion of the law in the report.

Ms. Randeep Kaur's case related to denial of admission due to late submission of admission form. The facts of that case showed that the admission form was tendered on the last date fixed for the submission of forms, but the same was refused on the ground that it was not accompanied by detailed marks result card. The plea of the candidate was that detailed marks result card of the PMT examination had not been furnished to her. She procured the same afterwards. It was in these circumstances directed that her application form be entertained, as delay was not caused due to any fault on her part.

Miss Bharti Bala's case related to admission. The eligibility certificate was of doubtful authenticity. On enquiry the same was found to be genuine. The provisional admission granted earlier was, therefore, converted into a regular admission.

It will be seen from the foregoing observations that in none of these cases was it shown that there existed a provision similar to the provision in the Prospectus with regard to condition of eligibility. It has further not been shown that in any of these cases there was an express requirement of the possession of condition of eligibility on the date of admission and none of these cases, therefore, furnishes any binding precedent. A reading between the lines of these decisions further shows that one of the important factors which appeared to have been taken into consideration was that the relevant rules and regulations themselves provided for revaluation of answer sheets and it was only to be expected that result of revaluation must be taken into consideration in order to satisfactorily determine inter se merit of the candidates. No fault can be found in the line of reasoning on which the decisions proceeded in those cases.

(vi) The case of Jagdeep Singh petitioner in CWP No. 12591 of 1994 is distinguishable from that of the other petitioners of first set. Jagdeep Singh aforesaid appeared on the date fixed for admission and asked for a few hours time to produce the declaration of his result which was being brought by his father who was likely to reach any time: His result was conveyed vide provisional certificate Annexure P-2 dated August 22, 1994. It was to the effect that Jagdeep Singh had passed the 3-Year Diploma examination in Electronics Engineering of the State Board of Technical Education, Haryana, held in June/July 1994 obtaining 1487 marks out of 2025 in the first division. Further case pleaded by the said petitioner is that on that very day his father reached with the said certificate and it was produced before the admission authorities. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Institute, the stand taken is that the certificate was produced in the evening of August 22, 1994, whereas the admissions had been concluded by 2 p.m that day. We are clearly: of the view that in the absence of the closing time having been prescribed in the Prospectus, the Institute was not justified in closing the admission by 2 p.m and production of the eligibility certificate the same evening entitled the petitioner to be given admission as per his merit in the entrance test.

(vii) We are of the considered view that the letter Annexure P-3 filed with CWP No. 11475 of 1994 by the Assistant. Registrar (Administration) did not have the effect of extending the date for submission of the eligibility certificate and the same was, therefore, of no consequence.

(viii) We further find that the observations of the apex Court in Gurunanak Dev University v. Parminder Kumar Bansal, AIR 1993 SC 2412 : (1993 AIR SCW 2695) and Gurdeep Singh v. State of J. & K., AIR 1993 SC 2638 : (1993 AIR SCW 3420) do lend support to the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Institute that the candidate must possess requisite eligibility on the relevant date.

(ix) Mr. Jasbir Singh, learned counsel for the applicants in Civil Misc. No. 7890 of 1994 in CWP No. 9719 of 1994 contended that this Court had inherent powers under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151, C.P.C to review its order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relied on a Constitution Bench decision in Shivdev Singh & Others v. State Of Punjab & Others, AIR 1963 SC 1909. The applicants were not a party in the said writ petition. Their rights cannot be prejudicially affected by any order passed in the writ petition. We find that the relevant provisions regarding eligibility and method of admission are substantially identical with those laid down by the Institute and what has been discussed in the foregoing part of this judgment applies to the present case in CWP No. 9719 of 1994 which has given rise to the aforesaid review application. For these reasons, both the Civil Misc. applications under Order 1 Rule 10 as well as under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151. C.P.C are allowed and the order dated August 4, 1994, passed in CWP No. 9719 of 1994 is recalled.

15. For the foregoing reasons, we dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions:

(i) The candidates who had not passed the qualifying examination on August 22, 1994, were not entitled to be admitted. The provisional admission granted to some of the petitioners relating to first set shall stand cancelled.

(ii) The resultant vacancies are to be filled by candidates provided:

(a) They fulfil conditions of eligibility as on August 22, 1994;

(b) As per their merit in the entrance test;

(c) They attended the Institute on August 22, 1994, when their attendance was noted.

(iii) The admission of the petitioners in the second set (CWP Nos. 12584, 12943 and 13424 of 1994) shall be regulated in terms of the directions in para (ii) above.

(iv) Jagdeep Singh petitioner shall be considered for admission as per his merit in the entrance test.

(v) The scheduled castes candidate shall be considered for admission in the light of the directions given herein against seats meant for the said reserved category as per inter se merit relating to that category.

(vi) The admission relating to the Engineering Colleges respondents 4 to 7 in CWP No. 9719 of 1994 shall be re-adjusted considering the merit of respective candidates including the four applicants, namely, (1) Neeraj Sharma son of Sh. S.D Sharma, resident of 526, GTB Nagar; (2) Narwant Singh son of Sh. Dalbir Singh r/o Govt. Polytechnic Bathinda; (3) Manjinderpal Singh s/o S. Naranjan Singh, 10 Nagpal Nagar, Malout, and (4) Kanwaljit Singh s/o S. Sadhu Singh r/o 753 Dogra Basti, Faridkot. It will be open to the said colleges to exclude persons who are lower down in merit even though they have earlier been given admission including those who were admitted in pursuance of the order dated August 4, 1994, passed in the said CWP No. 9719 of 1994.

(vii) If necessary, intimation shall be sent to the candidates who are entitled to be given admission in terms of these directions but who are not parties before us. If the number of such candidates is large, it will be sufficient to give public notice through newspaper.

(viii) The above exercise shall be completed as soon as possible, and, in any case, within one month from the date of this order.

(ix) It shall be open to the Institute to obtain further directions/clarifications to effectuate the above directions.

16. The writ petitions are disposed of in those terms.

Order accordingly.