http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING ANDTECHNOLOGY, PATIALA (DEEM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ABHINAV TANEJA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1990

BENCH: 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)37

ACT:     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 candidates--High  Court directing admission  of--Petitioners less meritorious than others waiting--Whether justified.

HEADNOTE:     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-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

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]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 4885-91 of 1989.     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9. 1989 & 6.10.1989 of  the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.  No.  11218/89 and 12519, 12520, 12521, 12593, 12868 & 12463 of 1989. P.H. Parekh, Manoj Swarup and J.P. Pathak for the Appellant. Krishan Kumar and Mehta Dave & Co. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SAWANT, J. These appeals are directed against two Orders of  the Punjab & Haryana High Court by which the High  Court has  directed the appellant-Institute to  admit  respondent- students  1 to 8B to its B .E. course irrespective of  their merits.     2.  The relevant admitted facts are that on May  24  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

25,  1989, respondent No. 9--Punjab University held  a  Com- bined  Entrance Test (C.E.T.) for admission to  B.E.  course (Session  1989-90) conducted by 4 different  institutes  in- cluding  the  appellant-Institute.  On June  26,  1989,  the University declared the merit list of students who  appeared in C.E.T. June 30, 1989 was the last date fixed for  submit- ting applications by students to individual institutes.  The students were given choice of the institutions and they were required  to state their choice in order of preference.  The representatives from the 4 institutes met together at Chand- igarh from 24th to 27th July 1989 to finalise the admissions tO  the 4 institutes. The meeting of the representatives  of the  4 institutes was necessary to ensure that the  students were  given the institutes of their choice in the  order  of merit,  subject, of course, to the students applying to  the particular  institutes  and  that the student  did  not  get admission at more than one institute at a time. The  Commit- tee of representatives interviewed the students and  awarded them  the institutes of their choice in the order  of  their respective merits. Accordingly, the appellant-Institute drew up its merit list of candidates. Interviews were held in the respective institutes including the appellant-Institute  for filling up the reserved seats other than those 397 reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and  also for  filling up seats in general category which fell  vacant subsequentIy as a result of the students leaving the  appel- lant-Institute. On August 14, 1989, a second round of inter- views  was held in all the institutes including  the  appel- lant-Institute  for  filling seats which fell  vacant  as  a result  of  the  students  leaving  the  appellant-Institute subsequently.  Incidentally, this was also the last date  of admission  to B.E. course as was notified in the  prospectus of  the  appellant-Institute.  However, the  last  date  was extended  to  25th August, 1989 by an advertisement  in  the newspaper,  namely,  Tribune published on  August  19,  1989 wherein  it was clearly mentioned that the admission to  the course will be closed on August 25, 1989. The  advertisement was  repeated  in another newspaper, namely,  the  Times  of India on August 20, 1989. The appellantInstitute closed  the admissions at 5.00 p.m. on August 25, 1989. On this day, the position  of the appellant-Institute was that the last  stu- dent  who  was admitted to the B .E. Course  was  at  serial number 1127 in the merit list prepared by the University  as per the results of the C.E.T     3.  On August 30, 1989, respondents 1 to 4 filed a  Writ Petition  No.  112 18/89 before the Punjab  &  Haryana  High Court  for a direction to the appellant-Institute to  extend its  last  date of admission and to admit them to  the  B.E. course  in the appellant-Institute alleging that  six  seats were lying vacant in the Institute.     4.  In  the meanwhile, as usual, the first test  of  the B.E.  course was held by the appellant-Institute  after  six weeks  of the commencement of the course. On  September  19, 1989, the appellant-Institute filed its written statement to the  writ petition objecting to the maintainability  of  the petition  against  the appellant-Institute as it was  not  a State within the meaning of Article- 12 of the  Constitution of  India. It was also pointed out in the written  statement that  since  the past experience showed that  some  students left  the  Institute as soon as they got  admission  in  the other  institutes, the appellant-Institute had  admitted  10 additional  students  to the B.E. course.  The  total  seats available in the B.E. course in the appellant-Institute were 180  and students at numbers 181-190 were admitted  to  meet

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

this  contingency.  It was also pointed out in  the  written statement that the last date of admission to the course  was fixed  by  the appellant-Institute taking into  account  the said past experience as well as to put a seal of finality on the  process  of admission which  would  otherwise  continue indefinitely. On September 20, 1989, the appellant-Institute also  filed a short affidavit in the writ  petition  stating therein that the admissions to the B.E. course had closed on 25th August, 1989 and no student had been 398 admitted  thereafter. It was also pointed out  that  regular classes  had begun, and the first terminal  examination  had been  held from 4th September, 1989 to 9th  September,  1989 which  carried  weightage  of about 30%  marks.  Hence,  the students admitted at the belated stage would not be able  to cover  up  lecture-attendance and no seat in excess  of  the total seats could be filled up.     4.  On  September 21, 1989, the High Court  allowed  the writ petition by proceeding on the assumption that more than half  a  dozen seats were lying vacant with  the  appellant- Institute. The High Court held that belated admissions  were something  that the students seeking such  admissions  would worry about rather than the appellant-Institute. The  appel- lant-Institute  was  also directed to  grant  admissions  to respondents 1 to 4 in the B.E. course forthwith. As  pointed out  by  the appellant-Institute, on that  day  the  factual position with regard to seats in the course was that out  of 190  students  who were granted admission, 12  students  had left  leaving  a total strength of 178 students.  Since  the last  date for admission was August 25, 1989,  178  students had  continued in the course with regular  instructions  and tests  one of which was already held as stated  earlier  be- tween  4th  and  9th September, 1989, six  weeks  after  the commencement of the course. 5. A further batch of Writ Petitions, namely, Writ Petitions Nos. 125 19, 12520, 1252 1, 12593, 12868, 12463 all of  1989 filed  by respondents 5 to 8B respectively were  allowed  by the  High Court on October 6, 1989 directing the  appellant- Institute  to admit the respective respondents to  the  said course.  It  also further appears that three  other  similar writ petitions filed by other students seeking admission  to the course in the appellant-Institute are pending before the High Court for preliminary hearing. The  appellant-Institute further  points out that the second test of the said  course was scheduled to be held from 23rd to 28th October, 1989.     6.  It is not disputed before us that whereas  the  last student admitted on merit in the appellant-Institute was  at serial number 1127 in the merit list prepared by the Univer- sity  as  per the Combined Entrance  Test,  the  respondent- students were at the serial numbers in the said merit  list, as  follows:  respondent No. 1 (1145), No. 2 (1147),  No.  3 (116  1),  No. 4 (1277), No. 5 (1259), No. 6 (1112),  No.  7 (1266), No. 8 (1218), No. 8A (1189) and No. 8B (1245).  Thus it will be seen that except for respondent No. 6 who had not earlier  applied for being admitted to the  appellant-Insti- tute  and  had opted for some other Institute, all  the  re- spondents had secured lower numbers in the merit list. 399 What  is further, the students who were at a  higher  serial number of merit list were still waiting for admission to the appellant-Institute, when the High Court directed the appel- lant-Institute  to  admit the respondent-students.  What  is more, even 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 to the  appellantIn-

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

stitute according to their merit. The relief claimed in Writ Petition  No.  112 18/89 may be reproduced here  by  way  of illustration: "this  Hon’ble Court may please to issue a Writ of  Mandamus directing  the respondents to extend the date  of  admission and to admit the petitioners in the B.E. course as per their merits;". (emphasis supplied) The  High Court further not only ignored the fact which  was specifically pointed out in the appellant-Institute’s  affi- davit in reply before it, that there were no seats available in the appellant-Institute whose capacity was only 180 seats but also the fact that there were more meritorious  students than the respondents as per the C.E.T. who could not  secure admission and who were waiting to be admitted to the  appel- lant-Institute. The respondent-students could get  admission to the appellant-Institute only if their comparative  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.     7.  There  was further nothing wrong in  the  appellant- Institute  admitting 10 more students in  the  circumstances pointed out above. The Institute has a capacity of only  180 students. To meet the contingency of the students leaving it soon  after  admission they had admitted, as they  do  every year, 10 more students. As it turned out, 12 of the students left  leaving 178 students on the roll, with only  2  vacan- cies.  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  be 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 appellantInstitute  as  well as to the  students  who  stood higher  in  merit than almost  all  the  respondent-students except respondent No. 6. We refrain from making any  further comments on the impugned order. 400     8. Since 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, we  do not  propose to interfere with their pursuit of the  course. It is for this reason that we are dismissing the appeals.     In  the circumstances, the appeals stand dismissed,  but with no order as to costs. G.N.                                      Appeals dismissed. ?401