http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY PATIALA TECHN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/12/1996

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH      CIVIL APPEAL NO.15577 OF 1996      (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10224 of 1995)                             WITH      WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 507 OF 1995                             WITH                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4101 OF 1995                       J U D G M E N T      S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :      Special leave granted in S.L.Ps. (C) Nos. 10132 of 1995 and 10224 of 1995.      These  appeals  and  the  writ  petition  raise  common questions relating  to reservation  of seats  for  wards  of employees  in   the  matter  of  admission  to  institutions imparting technical  education.  The  appeals  are  directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated September 2, 1994. We will first take up the appeals.      Civil  Appeal   No.  4101   OF  1995   relates  to  the Technological Institute of Textile and Science at Bhiwani in the State  of Haryana  (for short  ‘the T.I.T.  & S.’).  The T.I.T. &  S. is  a society  registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration  Act, 1961. It is running a technical institute  which   imparts  education/training   in  Textile Technology,  Textile   Chemistry,   Computer   Science   and Management Science  leading  to  the  award  of  B.  Tech/M. Tech./M.M.S. Degrees.  The T.I.T.  & S. is affiliated to the Maharshi Dayanand  University, Rohtak  (hereinafter referred to as‘the respondent-University’). The T.I.T. & S. also owns and runs  a textile mill under the same roof employing about 1500 workers wherein the students receive practical training under the  actual mill working conditions. The normal intake in the  B. Tech.  Course of  the T.I.T.  & S. is 90 students each year  and admission to these 90 seats is made according to merit  on  the  basis  of  a  competitive  entrance  test conducted by  the respondent-University.  In addition to the aforesaid 90  seats, the  T.I.T.  &  S.  has  provided  four additional seats  for the  wards of  the  employees  of  the appellant-Institute. These  seats are available to the wards of only  those employees  who have  put in  minimum 10 years service in  the T.I.T.  & S.  Two of  these four  seats  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

available in  Computer Science and the other two in Textiles Out of  these four seats two seats are earmarked for college staff and  two seats for mill/school staff. As per the rules prescribed for  admission effective  since academic  session 1991-92, in order to be eligible for admission the candidate is required  to have  at least 60% marks in the aggregate of three  subjects  (Physics,  Chemistry  and  Maths)  at  10+2 examination and  admission is  to be  made on  the basis  of merit to  be earned  according to  the marks  secured in the Entrance Examination conducted by the respondent-University. Seats earmarked  for college  and mill/school  staff can  be inter-changed in  case there is no eligible candidate in one particular group  and if a seat allotted for Computer Course is not  desired by  the allottee, he shall be offered a seat in the  Textile Course  and, if any seat remains vacant, the requirement of  service period  may be  relaxed  with  prior approval of  the Chairman  of  the  Society.  Normally  this facility for  wards of  the staff  is available for one seat for one  employee’s child  but in no case it can be extended to more  than two  children. The  wards of the employees who secure admission  on their own merit or on reserved seats of wards are  eligible for  freeship. The  T.I.T. & S. does not receive any  financial did  either from the State Government or the  Central Government  or the  respondent-University or any other  local authority.  By letter  dated July 15, 1993, the  respondent-University  conveyed  its  decision  not  to permit the  T.I.T. &  S. to continue with the reservation of seats for  the wards  of the staff of the T.I.T. & S. in the B. Tech Course in view of the judgment of this Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan  and others  v. State  of Andhra  Pradesh  and others, 1993  (1) SCC  645, and the T.I.T. & S. was directed not to  make any  admission  under  this  category.  Feeling aggrieved by  the said  order of  the respondent-University, the T.I.T.  & S.  filed a  Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 9296 of 1993) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which has been dismissed by  the impugned  judgment of the High Court dated September 2, 1994.      Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.Ps. Nos. 10132 of 1995 and  10224  of  1995  relate  to  the  Thapar  Institute  of Engineering & Technology, Patiala (for short ‘the T.I.E.T.’) and the  Thapar Polytechnic  which have been established and are being  run by  the Patiala Technical Education Trust. As per declaration of the Central Government dated December 30, 1985 under  Section 3  of the  university Grants  Commission Act, 1956, the T.I.E.T. is deemed to be a university for the purpose of  the said  Act. The T.I.E.T. imparts education at the Graduate  and Post-Graduate level. At the under-graduate level it awards degree in Bachelor of Engineering and at the post-graduate level  it  awards  the  degree  in  Master  of Engineering. In  the T.I.E.T. there are 180 seats in various courses for  award of  degree in  Bachelor of Engineering 2% seats are  reserved for  the children  of employees  of  the T.I.E.T. sand  the Patiala  Technical Education Trust and 5% seats are  reserved for  the children of employees of Thapar Group of Companies. The candidates for these seats are to be sponsored by  the Patiala  Technical  Education  trust.  The T.I.E.T. receives  maintenance grants  for running  expenses from  the  Government  of  Punjab.  The  Thapar  Polytechnic conducts three  year courses.  Admission to these courses is made on  the basis  of  merit  to  be  determined  in  Joint Competitive Entrance Test conducted by the Punjab Government through  Punjab   School  Education   Board.  Provision  is, however, made  for reservation  of 2%  seats  for  wards  of employees of  the T.I.E.T.  and the Thapar Polytechnic to be nominated by  the Patiala  Technical  Education  Trust.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

nomination is  made on  the  basis  of  relative  merits  of candidates but  the nominated candidates are not required to appear in the Common Entrance Test. The Polytechnic receives grant for  running expenses  from the  State Government. The Government of Punjab, by its letter dated September 16, 1991 addressed  to   the  Director  of  Technical  Education  and Industrial Training,  Punjab, communicated  that in  view of the pronouncement  of the  High Court  of Punjab and Haryana that  reservations   in  admission  are  discriminatory  and unconstitutional, reservation  in  admission  for  wards  of employees working  in the  Department/Institutions cannot be justified on  the plea  that it  is done  as  a  measure  of welfare and that the Government had decided that with effect from the  academic session 1991-92 onwards there shall be no reservation  in   admissions  for   wards  of  employees  of Department/Institutions and that such reservations, wherever stipulated    in    (a)    Diploma    level    courses    in Government/Private   aided/Private    unaided   Institutions affiliated with  the State Board of Technical Education, and (b) Certificate  level courses in all such like Institutions under the  purview of  the Industrial  Training wing  of the said  Department,   shall  stand  concelled  with  immediate effect.  As  regards  Degree  level  courses  in  such  like Institutions,  falling   within  the  purview  of  the  said Department and  affiliated with  State  Board  of  Technical Education, it  was directed that since admission had already been  finalised   for  the  academic  session  1991-92,  the decision would  be applicable in their case with effect from the next  academic year, i.e., 1992-93. The T.I.E.T. filed a Writ Petition  (Writ Petition  No. 1745 of 1992) in the High Court and  another Writ  Petition (Writ Petition No. 1744 of 1992) was  filed by  the Patiala  Technical Education  Trust assailing the  said order  of the Government of Punjab dated September 16,  1991. Both  these Writ  Petitions  have  been dismissed by  the impugned  judgment of the High Court dated September 2, 1994.      The High Court has held that in view of the decision of this Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan & Ors. (supra) no quota can be reserved  for the  management or for any family, caste or community which  may have  established the college. The High Court has  rejected the  contention that  J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) was  not applicable.  The High Court has also placed reliance on  the decisions of this Court State of Gujarat v. Meghji Pethraj  Shah Charitable  Trust &  Ors., 1994 (3) SCC 552, and  Chairman/Directed, Combined  Entrance  Examination (CEE) 1990  v. Osiris  Das & Ors., 1992 (3) SCC 543, and has held that  the orders  impugned in the writ petitions do not suffer from any illegality or unconstitutionality.      In the context of admission to an institution imparting higher education  in professional  courses  a  question  has often arisen  whether the  State can  make provision  giving preferential treatment  to candidates  seeking admission  to the institution.  In dealing with this question the approach of this Court has been that such preferential treatment must be  consistent  with  the  mandate  of  Article  14  of  the Constitution guaranting  equality of  opportunity  and  that though  reasonable   classification  is   permissible,  such classification must  have a  reasonable nexus with object of the rules  providing such  admission, namely,  to select the most meritorious amongst the candidates to have advantage of such education.  Applying this  test this  Court has  struck down, as  violative  of  Article  14  of  the  Constitution, provision for  allotment of  seats in medical college in the State amongst  the various  districts in  the State  in  the ratio of  the population  of  each  district  to  the  total

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

population of  the State. [See ; Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras  & Ors.,  1968 (2) SCR 786]. Similar provision for distribution of  seats on  unit basis  was also struck down. [See :  A. Peeriakaruppan,  Etc. v.  State of  Tamil Nadu  & Ors., 1971  (2) SCR  430]. University  wise distribution  of seats has,  however, been  upheld on  the  ground  that  the universities are set up for satisfying the educational needs of different  areas where they are set up and those attached to such  universities have  their ambitions to have training in specialised  subjects  like  medicine  satisfied  through colleges attached  to their  own universities.  [See :  D.N. Chanchala v.  State of  Mysore &  Ors., Etc., 1971 Supp. SCR 608].  It   has  been   laid  down   that  university   wise preferential treatment  may be  consistent with  the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or  handicap and  permit equality  in  the  larger sense. [See : Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1980 (2) SCR 831, at p. 849]      The Court has insisted that while nominating candidates for admission  the concerned  authority  should  follow  the criterion  of  merit  and  has  viewed  with  disfavour  the conferment of  discretion in  this regard  on the founder of the institution  or the  person/persons in management of the institution. In Suman Gupta & Ors., Etc. v. State of J & K & Ors., 1983  (3) SCR 985, there was an arrangement among some of the  States under which a certain percentage of the seats in Medical  Colleges was  reserved for candidates from other States on  a reciprocal  basis. The  nominations made by the State Governments against these seats were challenged on the ground that  the same  were made by the State Governments in their absolute  and arbitrary  discretion. It  was held that the principle adopted by the State Governments of nominating candidates in  their absolute and unfettered choice to seats in medical  colleges outside  the State  was  invalid  being violative of  Article 14  of  the  Constitution.  The  Court directed the  Medical Council of India to formulate a proper constitutional  basis   for  determining  the  selection  of candidates for  nomination  to  seats  in  Medical  Colleges outside the  State and  that until a policy is so formulated and  concrete   criteria  are   embodied  in  the  procedure selected,  the   nominations  shall  be  made  by  selecting candidates strictly  on the  basis of  merit, the  candidate nominated being  those, in order of merit, immediately below the  candidates   selected  for  admission  to  the  Medical Colleges of  the home  States. Similarly,  in K.  Sujatha v. Marathawada University  & Ors.,  1995  Supp.  (1)  SCC  155, admission to  20% of  the seats was at the discretion of the management of  the Medical College. It was argued that these seats were  not the  open merit  seats. Rejecting  the  said contention, it  was held  that  there  cannot  be  different eligibility rules  for candidates  admitted  from  different sources.      In J.P.  Unni Krishnan  (supra) a Constitution Bench of this  Court   was  dealing   with   admission   to   private unaided/aided recognised/affiliated educational institutions conducting professional courses such as medical, engineering courses etc.  and charging  of the  capitation fees  by  the management of  the institution for the purpose of admission. As regards  aided institutions it was held that they have to abide by  the rules  and regulations as may be framed by the Government and/or recognising/affiliating authorities in the matter  of   recruitment  of   teachers  and   staff,  their conditions of service, syllabus, standard of teaching and so on and,  in  particular,  in  the  matter  of  admission  of students, they  have to  follow the  rule of merit and merit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

alone subject  to any  reservation made under Article 15 and they shall  not be  entitled to  charge any fees higher than what is  charged in  Governmental institutions  for  similar courses [p.  749]. As regards unaided institutions which are recognised/affiliated  it  was  held  that  it  may  not  be insisted that  the  private  educational  institution  shall charge only  that fee  as is  charged for similar courses in governmental  institutions   and  that  private  educational institutions  are  entitled  to  charge  a  higher  fee  not exceeding the  ceiling fixed  in that behalf since they have to meet  the  cost  of  imparting  education  on  their  own resources    and     the    main     source    apart    from donations/charities, if  any, can only be the fees collected from the students. At the same time, it was laid down :-      "No private educational institution      can  survive   or  subsist  without      recognition and/or affiliation. The      bodies  which   grant   recognition      and/or    affiliation    are    the      authorities of the State. In such a      situation, it  is obligatory  -  in      the interest  of general  public  -      upon   the    authority    granting      recognition   or   affiliation   to      insist upon  such conditions as are      appropriate  to   ensure  not  only      education of requisite standard but      also fairness  and equal  treatment      in  the   matter  of  admission  of      student.         Since          the      recognizing/affiliating   authority      is  the   State,  it  is  under  an      obligation    to     impose    such      conditions  as  part  of  its  duty      enjoined upon  if by  Article 14 of      the Constitution.  It cannot  allow      itself or  its power  and privilege      to be  used unfairly. The incidents      attaching  to   the  main  activity      attach to  supplemental activity as      well.  Affiliation/recognition   is      not there  for anybody  to  get  it      gratis or  unconditionally. In  our      opinion, no  Government,  authority      or University  is justified  or  is      entitled          to          grant      recognition/affiliation     without      imposing such  conditions. Doing so      would  amount   to  abdicating  its      obligations  enjoined  upon  it  by      Part III;  its activity is bound to      be         characterised         as      unconstitutional  and  illegal.  To      reiterate, what applies to the main      activity   applies    equally    to      supplemental  activity.  The  State      cannot  claim   immunity  from  the      obligations arising  from  Articles      14 and  15. If so, it cannot confer      such immunity upon its affiliates."      [p. 755]      In J.P.  Unni Krishnan (supra) this Court has evolved a Scheme      which       every       authority       granting recognition/affiliation shall  impose upon  the institutions seeking such  recognition/affiliation. It  has been observed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

that the  idea behind  the Scheme is to eliminate discretion in the  management altogether  in the  matter  of  admission because it is the discretion in the matter of admission that is at the root of the several ills complained of. The Scheme is  in  the  nature  of  guidelines  which  the  appropriate Governments and  recognising and affiliating authorities are required to  impose and  implement in addition to such other conditions and stipulations as they may think appropriate as conditions for  grant of permission, grant of recognition or grant of  affiliation,  as  the  case  may  be.  The  Scheme postulates  that   at  least  50%  of  the  seats  in  every professional college  shall be  filled by the nominees of ht Government or  University, as  the  case  may  be,  and  the students for  these seats  shall be selected on the basis of merit  determined   on  the   basis  of  a  common  entrance examination where  it is  held  or  in  the  absence  of  an entrance examination,  by such criteria as may be determined by the  competent authority or the appropriate authority, as the case  may be. The remaining 50% seats shall be filled by those candidates  who are prepared to pay the fee prescribed therefor  and   who  have  complied  with  the  instructions regarding deposit  and  furnishing  the  case  security/Bank guarantee for the balance of the amount. As regards ‘payment seats’ it has been prescribed :-      "The allotment  of students against      payment seats shall also be done on      the  basis   of  inter   se   merit      determined on  the same basis as in      the case of free seats. There shall      be  no   quota  reserved   for  the      management or for any family, caste      or   community   which   may   have      established such college."                 [p. 758]      The aforesaid requirement in the Scheme evolved by this Court in  J.P. Unni  Krishnan (supra)  that the admission to professional colleges  shall be  made on  the basis of merit gives effect  to the  law  laid  down  by  this  Court  that admission in professional colleges must be made on the basis of merit so as to secure the best possible talent.      In the  State of  Gujarat & Ors. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust  & Ors.  (supra),  the  M.P.  Shah  Medical College was  established in  Jamnagar in  1954 by  the  then State of  Saurashtra and  Shri M.P.  Shah had donated Rs. 15 lakhs for  establishing the  college. Initially  the College had 60  seats and  as per  the arrangement between Shri M.P. Shah and the then Chief minister of the State, Shri Shah was entitled to nominate students for admission to the extent of 10% of  the total  strength admitted  every  year  and  this arrangement was  to continue n permanent basis. In course of time, the  annual intake  of students in the college rose to 175 and in 1964 the Government of Gujarat decided to reserve 12 seats for nominees of the donor and in the meanwhile Shri Shah had  designated the  M.P. Shah  Charitable Trust as his nominee. After  the decision  in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra), the Government  of Gujarat  resolved to  discontinue the  12 donor seats  in the  M.P. Shah  Medical College.  The  Trust filed a  writ petition in the Gujarat High Court challenging the validity  of the  said resolution  of the  Government of Gujarat which  was allowed.  The said  decision of  the High Court was  reversed by  this Court and the resolution of the Government of Gujarat was upheld. It was observed :-      "Now, where  an  individual  or  an      organisation which  establishes and      runs a  medical college (recognised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

    by  State   or  affiliated   to   a      university)   is    not   entitled,      according to  Unnikrishnan to admit      students on  its  own,  or  in  its      discretion,  it   is  inconceivable      that a  person or  a body which has      assisted  in   setting  up   of   a      government medical college would be      permitted to  have a  quota of  its      own  to   which  it   can  nominate      students of  its own  choice. There      is no  room for such an arrangement      in law."                 [. 566]      Shri Kapil  Sibal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the  T.I.T. &  S. in  Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995, has urged that  it is  permissible to  make reservation  for the wards of the employees in the institution for the purpose of admission to  the institution  since the  T.I.T. &  S. is an unaided institution. He has placed reliance on the following observations of this Court in Chitra Ghosh & Another v. Union of India and Others, 1970 (1) SCR 413, :-      "It i  the Central Government which      bears  the   financial  burden   of      running the  medical college. It is      for it to lay down the criteria for      eligibility. From  the very  nature      of things  it is  not  possible  to      throw   the   admission   open   to      students from  all the country. The      Government  cannot  be  denied  the      right to  decide from  what sources      the admission  will be  made.  That      essentiality  is   a  question   of      policy and depends inter alia on an      overall assessment  and  survey  of      the requirements  of  residents  of      particular  territories  and  other      categories of  persons for  whom it      is essential  to provide facilities      for  medical   education.  If   the      sources  are   properly  classified      whether       on       territorial,      geographical  or  other  reasonable      basis it  is not  for the courts to      interfere  with   the  manner   and      method      of      making      the      classification."              [pp. 418, 419]      The said  contention of  the learned  counsel  and  his reliance on the observations in Chitra Ghosh (supra) proceed on a  misapprehension about  the correct  position.  In  the cases in  hand, we are not required to consider the validity of grant of preferential treatment to the wards of employees in the  institution in the matter of admission by the State, as defined  in Article  12 of  the  Constitution.  It  is  a converse case.  Here the State, viz., The Maharashi Dayanand University, has  directed the  T.I.T. &  S. not to give such preferential  treatment   and  the   validity  of  the  said direction is  being challenged by the institution. In giving the impugned  direction the  respondent-University  is  only giving effect  to the  law laid  down by  this Court in J.P. Unni  Krishnan   (supra)  regarding   admission  to  unaided educational  institutions.   Since  the   T.I.T.  &   S.  is affiliated  with   it  the   respondent-University  as   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

affiliating authority  is bound to ensure that in the matter of admission to the institution there is no violation of the right to equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.      In Chitra  Ghosh (supra)  this Court  was dealing  with validity of  reservation of  certain number  of seats  in  a medical college run by the Central Government for candidates falling in specified categories and admission was to be made against those  seats on  the  basis  of  nomination  by  the Central Government.  The admission  of the  students on  the basis of nomination by the Central Government was challenged on  the   ground  that  these  students  had  obtained  less percentage of  marks than  the appellants  in that  case and reliance was placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of the Patna  High   Court  in  Umesh  Ch.  Sinha  v.  V.N.  Singh, Principal, P.M.C. & Hospital & Ors., ILR 46 Patna 616, where preferential treatment  had been  given to  the employees of the Patna University in the matter of admission to the Patna Medical College  and the  High Court had held that there was no  reasonable   nexus  between   the  principle   governing admission to the college on the one hand and the precunniary difficulties or  the meritorious  services rendered  by  the employees of  the Patna  University on  the other  and  that preferential treatment  to the  children of  these employees would amount  to favouritism  and patronage.  Distinguishing the said  decision of  the Patna  High Court, this Court has said :-      "There  is   no  question   of  any      preferential    treatment     being      accorded to any particular category      or class  of  persons  desirous  of      receiving medical  education in the      present case.  The mere  fact  that      the Central  Government has to make      the nominations  with regard to the      reserved seats cannot be considered      to be preferential treatment of any      kind. As  the  candidates  for  the      reserved seats  have  to  be  drawn      from different  sources it would be      difficult to have uniformity in the      matter of  selection  from  amongst      them. The  High Court  was right in      saying that  the standards  of  the      examinations passed  by  them,  the      subjects studied  by them  and  the      educational back-ground  of each of      them   would   be   different   and      divergent and therefore the Central      Government  was   the   appropriate      authority which could make a proper      selection out  of those categories.      Moreover, this  is being  done with      the tacit  approval and  consent of      the   Medical    Course   Admission      Committee."              [pp. 419, 420]      The question  whether  reservation  in  the  matter  of admission  is  permissible  forwards  of  employees  of  the institution   was    considered    by    this    Court    in Chairman/Director, Combined  Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris  Das &  Ors. (supra).  It relates to the G.B. Pant University, which is aided and financed by the Government of U.P. The  Government  of  U.P.  had  issued  a  notification directing that  admission of  the students  to  the  various

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

Engineering Institutions in the State shall be made in order of merit  and through  a Combined Entrance Examination to be conducted  by   an  Admission   Committee.  The   G.B.  Pant University made  provision for  reserving 5%  seats over and above the sanctioned strength of seats for sons and wards of the employees of the University for admission to the B. Tech course.  The   State  Government   insisted  that  any  such reservation was  not justified  and  would  be  contrary  to constitutional provisions.  The University accepted the said directions issued  by the State Government and decided to do away with  the reservation.  In writ  petitions filed by the students who  failed to qualify for admission in the general category of  candidates and  were claiming admission against the reserved  quota,  interim  orders  were  passed  by  the Allahabad  High  Court  for  giving  provisional  admission. Setting aside  the said orders of the High Court, this Court has held :-      "There is  no dispute that the G.B.      Pant  University   is   aided   and      financed by  the  State  Government      and   the    University    is    an      instrumentality of  the State.  Any      instrumentality of the State cannot      give preferential  treatment  to  a      class  of   persons  without  there      being  any  justification  for  the      same. The  reservation of seats for      admission to  the B. Tech course in      favour of the sons and wards of the      employees  of   the  University  is      violative  of   the   doctrine   of      equality enshrined under Article 14      of the  Constitution. There  is  no      rational for the reservation of the      seats in  favour of  the  sons  and      wards  of   the  employees  of  the      University nor any such reservation      has any  rational  nexus  with  the      object  which   is  sought   to  be      achieved  by  the  University.  The      State Government,  in our  opinion,      rightly insisted  on the University      to do away with the reservations in      favour of the sons and wards of the      employees."              [pp. 545, 546]      In  so  far  as  Civil  Appeal  No.  4101  of  1995  is concerned, the letter of respondent-University dated January 15, 1993  directing the T.I.T. & S. not to continue with the reservation of  seats for wards of the staff of the T.I.T. & S. in  the B.  Tech. Court  was taken  in pursuance  of  the decision of  this Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) and is in consonance  with the  law laid down in Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance  Examination (CEE)  1990 v.  Osiris Das  & Ors. (supra)  since the  T.I.T. &  S. is  affiliated to  the respondent-University. It  is no  doubt true  that the  four additional seats  for which  reservation was  made  for  the wards of  the college  and mill/school staff of the T.I.T. & S. are  in addition to 90 seats and admission is made on the basis  of   marks  obtained   in  the  Entrance  Examination conducted by  the respondent-University. But for the purpose of admission  to these  four seats  a separate merit list is drawn in  respect of  the candidates  who are  eligible  for these seats  and admission is not made according to merit as reflected in  the common  merit list.  Such  reservation  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

favour of  wards of the college and mill/school staff of the T.I.T. &  S. does  not satisfy  the test  of admission being given strictly  on the  basis of  merit as laid down by this Court and  has been  rightly held  to be  impressible by the High Court.  The said  appeal is,  therefore, liable  to  be dismissed.      In Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10132 of 1995  there was  reservation to the extent of 2% of seats for wards  of the  employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala Technical Education  Trust and  there was reservation to the extent of  5% of  seats for  wards of  the employees  of the Thapar group  of industries.  In Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil)  No. 10224  of 1995, there was reservation to the extent  of 2%  of seats  for wards  of employees  in the Thapar  Polytechnic  and  the  patiala  Technical  Education Trust. The  T.I.E.T.  and  the  Thapar  Polytechnic  receive maintenance grants  from the  Government of  Punjab and  are Government aided  educational institutions.  It is  no doubt true that  the T.I.E.T.  has been  declared to  be a "deemed university" by  the Central  Government under the provisions of the  University Grants  Commission Act,  1956.  But  this downs not  mean that  it is  permissible for the T.I.E.T. to depart from  the principle  laid down  by  this  Court  that admission should be made strictly on the basis of merit. The position of  the T.I.E.T.,  a deemed  University, cannot  be better than that of the G.B. Pant University which is a full fledged University and in view of the decision of this Court in Chairman/Director,  Combined Entrance  Examination  (CEE) 1990 v.  Osiris Das  & Ors.  (supra) it must be held that it was not  permissible for  the T.I.E.T.  to reserve 2% of the seats for the wards of the employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala Technical  Education Trust  and 5%  of seats for the children of employees in the Thapar group of industries. The reservation of  2% of  seats in  the Thapar  Polytechnic for wards of employees in the Thapar Polytechnic and the Patiala Technical Education  Trust was  also impressible  in view of the law  laid down  by this  Court  in  J.P.  Unni  Krishnan (supra) and Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990  v. Osiris  Das &  Ors. (supra).  The  directions contained in  letter  of  the  Government  of  Punjab  dated September 16,  1991,  being  in  consonance  with  the  said decisions, have  been rightly  upheld by  the High Court and both the appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.      Writ Petition No. 507 of 1995 has been jointly filed by the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala Technical Education Trust under Article 32  of the Constitution for quashing Memo dated June 6, 1995  addressed by  the Director, Technical Education and Industrial Training,  Punjab (Technical  Education Wing)  to the Co-ordinator,  Punjabi University,  Punjab and a copy is endorsed to  the Director  of the  T.I.E.T. In the said Memo dated June  6, 1995,  issued by  the Director  of  Technical Education and  Industrial Training,  Punjab, to  the Punjabi University, Patiala,  it is stated that reservation proposed by the  T.I.E.T. in respect of 10 seats under paragraph 3(d) of the  Brochure-cum-Application form for admission on CET - 1995 providing  for 10  seats for Thapar Organisation is not legally sustainable  and should  not  be  reflected  in  the Admission Brochure  and  reference  has  been  made  to  the judgment in  J.P. Unni  Krishnan (supra).  The said  Memo is challenged in  the writ  petition on  the  ground  that  the T.I.E.T. is  a  "deemed  university"  under  the  University Grants Commission  Act and  that the  decision in  J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) has no application to university employees. While dealing  with  Civil  Appeal  arising  out  of  S.L.P. (Civil)  No.   10132  of   1995,  we  have  considered  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

submission and  have held that the such reservation of seats in the T.I.E.T. is not permissible. For the same reasons, it must be  held that the direction contained in the Memo dated June 6, 1995 does not suffer from any infirmity and the Writ Petition is also liable to be dismissed.      In the  result, the  Civil Appeals  as well as the Writ Petition are  dismissed. But  in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.