http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SANJAY GULATI AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/04/1983

BENCH: CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. ((CJ) BENCH: 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

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 Courts 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  in tact,  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. Some day 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.

JUDGMENT:      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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

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. Some  day, 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 be 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

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. S.R.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

808