http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MANPREET SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT18/11/1991

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR  435            1991 SCR  Supl. (2) 322  1992 SCC  (1) 380        JT 1991 (4)   436  1991 SCALE  (2)1030

ACT:     Punjab Engineering College--Admissions---Union Territory of Chandigarh Memo dated 19.5.1982/6.9.1990--Reservation  of seats for children/spouses of military/para-military person- nel-College     prospectus     dividing    them     in     5 sub-categories--Admissions to be given in order of  priority in  descending order---High Court’s direction to switch  the categories affecting the order of priority Legality of. Constitution of India 1950:     Art. 226--High Court’s jurisdiction-Whether  supervisory in  nature- objectives of writ  jurisdiction  explained-High Court not to sit/act as an appellate authority over the rule making authorities. Practice and Procedure:     College  admissions--Whether High Court should stay  for 3-4  weeks implementation of its order admitting a  student, if so prayed.

HEADNOTE:     The  Union  Territory of Chandigarh, by its  Memo  dated 19.5.1982  as  modifited  by another  Memo  dated  6.9.1990, reserved 5% of seats for children/spouses of  military/pars- military personnel. Pursuant thereto the Punjab  Engineering College,  reserved  15 seats for such  candidates.  For  the purpose of admission the college categorised in its prospec- tus these candidates into 5 sub-categories. These  belonging to the respective categories and obtaining qualifying  marks in the entrance examination were to be admitted meritwise in the  order of priority in descending order:  sub-category  1 consisted of children/spouses of defence personnel who  were awardees  of gallantry decorations  of  Paramvir/Mahavir/Vir Chakra   in   person   or   posthumously,   or,    dependent children/spouses of defence/pars military personnel who were killed or totally incapacitated in action while in  service. Dependent childern/spouses of defence/pars military  person- nel who died in service were put in sub-category 2. Subcate- gory   3   comprised  the  dependent   children/spouses   of defence/pars  military  personnel  incapacitated  while   in service, Dependent children/spouses of Ex-servicemen  (mili- tary and pars military) were 323

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

placed in sub-category 4; and those of serving  defence/pars military personnel found place in sub-category 5.     For  the  academic year 1991-92 out of the 15  seats,  9 seats  went to all the 9 qualified candidates  belonging  to sub-categories 1 to 3, and remaining seats were allotted  to 6  candidates meritwise out of 90 qualified  candidates  be- longing to sub-category 4. Sub-category 5 went unprovided.     Respondent no.1 in SLP No.16066/91, who appeared in  the entrance  examination for the academic year 1991-92 but  did not  get  admission, filed a writ petition before  the  High Court contending that his father was an awardee of  ’Shaurya Chakra’ which was equivalent to Vir Chakra and therefore his case  ought  to have been considered in sub-category  1.  On behalf  of the College it was stated that  ’Shaurya  Chakra’ award  was not covered under the rules and regulations  and, therefore,  respondent no.1, being the son of an  Exservice- man, could be considered only in sub-category 4.     Respondents  no.1 and 2 in SLP No.16065/91, the sons  of the  serving defence personnel, filed another writ  petition before  the  High Court challenging  the  categorization  of defence  personnel as unreasonable and contended that  chil- dren of serving defence personnel should have been preferred over the children of Exserviceman.     The  High  Court  allowed both the  writ  petitions  and directed the College to admit all the three petitioners.  It ordered that subcategory 5 should be treated as sub-category 4  and sub-categery 4 should be treated as  sub-category  5, and the admissions should be made accordingly.     The  petitioner in SLP No.16451/91, being the son of  an serviceman,  was initially entitled to be  considered  under sub-category  4  which by the order of the  High  Court  was converted  into sub-category 5. He challenged the said  con- version of categories by yet another writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court.     The Chandigarh Administration and the College filed SLPs No.16066  and 16065 of 1991 against the orders of  the  High Court allowing the two writ petitions, whereas SLP No. 16451 of 1991 was filed by the petitioner in the third writ  peti- tion which was dismissed by the High Court. 324     It was contended on behalf of Chandigarh  Administration and  the College that the High Court exceeded its  jurisdic- tion  in granting the impugned order in as much as  in  writ jurisdiction  the  High Court does not sit as  an  appellate authority over the rule making body nor can it re-write  the rules. On  15.11.1991 the three Special Leave Petitions  were  dis- posed of.     Giving reasons in support of its order dated  15.11.1991 this Court,     HELD: 1. While acting under Article 226 of the Constitu- tion, the High Court does not sit and/or act as an appellate authority over the orders/actions of the subordinate author- ities/tribunals. Its jurisdiction is supervisory in  nature. [pp. 335 H; 336 A]     One  of the main objectives of this jurisdiction  is  to keep the government and several other authorities and tribu- nals within the bounds of their respective jurisdiction. The High  Court must ensure that while performing this  function it  does not overstep the wellrecognised bounds of  its  own jurisdiction. [p. 336 A]     2.1 In the instant case, the High Court should not  have indulged  in the exercise of ’switching’ the categories  and that  too without giving any reasons therefor.  Thereby,  it has  practicably assumed the role of rule-making  authority,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

or, at any rate, assumed the role of an appellate authority. That  is clearly not the function of the High  Court  acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. IP. 334 G-H1     2.2  If the High Court was satisfied that the  rule  was discriminatory  and bad, the only course open to it  was  to strike down the offending rule. It could also have  directed the  authorities  to reframe the rule  and  make  admissions accordingly. [p. 333 F]     By directing that category 4 should be treated as  cate- gory 5 and conversely category 5 should be treated as  cate- gory 4, the High Court has prejudicially affected the rights of   candidates  falling  under  category  4  without   even hearing.them,  particularly when these categories were  men- tioned in the order of priority. [p. 335 A]    3.  A rule making authority need not observe the rule  of hear- 325 ing,  but  the  High Court  exercising  its  judicial  power cannot dispense with the requirement. [p. 335 AB]     4.  Although the orders and directions made by the  High Court were totally unsupportable in law, yet, in view of the subsequent  developments, the Special Leave Petitions  could not be allowed. By the time the SLPs were taken up and  stay granted,  the respondents were already admitted in the  Col- lege and they gave up their seats which they had obtained in other  colleges.  Depriving them of their admission  in  the College  at  such  a late stage would result  in  grave  and irreparable  prejudice to them. The Administration  and  the College  authorities ought to have acted with more  alacrity and approached this court earlier than they did. [p. 336  B- D]     5.  In matters where the High Court directs the students to  be  admitted  in educational institutions  it  would  be advisable if the High Court stays the operation of its order for a period of about 3 to 4 weeks if a request therefor  is made by the educational institution or the State as the case may be. [pp. 336 GH; 337 A]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Special  Leave  Petition Nos. 16066. 16065 & 16451 of 1991.     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1991,30.8.1991  & 9.10.1991 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.Nos. 12644, 12485 and 14606 of 1991 respectively.     Kapil  Sibal,  Ranjit Kumar, J.D.  Jain,  Mrs.  Kawaljit Kocher,  Dr. Balram Gupta, Ms. Yasmin Tarapore, J. Lal  Kai- lash Vasdev, Ms Nandini Sawhney, R.K. Kapoor, A.A. Khan  and Anil Verma for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered:     In  the Union Territory of Chandigarh, 5% of  the  seats are  reserved in favour of sons/daughters/spouses  of  Mili- tary/Para-Military  personnel.  Orders in  this  behalf  are issued  by  the Administration in its memo dated  19th  May, 1982  which were later modified in memo dated  6.9.1990.  In accordance with the said orders, Punjab Engineering  College (a College run by the Chandigarh Administration and  affili- ated  to Punjab University) reserved 15 seats in  favour  of sons/daughters/spouses  of Military/ParaMilitary  Personnel. The College published a prospectus for the session  1991-92. It contains inter alia the rules governing the admission  of stu- 326 dents  to  the said college. So far as  the  reservation  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

favour  of  children and spouses  of  Military/Para-Military Personnel  is concerned, the rule, (printed at pages 23  and 24 of the Prospectus) reads as follows:               "Sons/Daughters/Spouses   of    Military/Para-               military Personnel etc.: 3       The Admission of the candidates against the reserved seats under this category will be made on the basis of merit list prepared according to the priorities given below in the descending order:-               1. Sons/Daughters/Spouses of defence personnel               who  are awardees of gallantry decorations  of               Paramvir/Mahavir/Vir   Chakra  in  person   or               posthumously.                                  OR               Sons/daughters/spouses  of  defence  personnel               and  para-military  personnel like  CRPF,  BSF               etc. who are killed or are total incapacitated               in  action  while in service and  were  wholly               dependent on them.               2.  Sons/daughters/spouses of defence  person-               nel and para-military personnel like  CRPF/BSF               etc. who die while in service and were  wholly               dependent on them;                  3.  Sons/daughters/spouses of defence  per-               sonnel   and  para-military   personnel   like               CRPF/BSF  incapacitated while in  service  and               were wholly dependent on them;                  4.  Sons/daughters/spouses of  exservicemen               (military  and  para-military  personnel  like               CRPF/BSF who are wholly dependent on them;                  5.  Sons/daughters/spouses of  serving  de-               fence  personnel  and  paramilitary  personnel               like  CRPF/BSF  who are  wholly  dependent  on               them:      The candidates claiming admissions under the category 1 above are required to submit the photo-copy of citation  for the gallantry award, failing which the application will  not be considered in this category,      The candidates claiming admission under category I  are required  to submit a certificate from the respective  Head- quarters  regarding  death/total  incapacitation  in  action while in service.      The candidates claiming admission under category 2  and 3  are required to submit a certificate from the  respective Headquarters  regarding death/total incapacitation.while  in service. 327     The  candidates claiming admission under category 4  are required  to  submit discharge certificate from  sevice  and certificate  of dependence from the District  Magistrate  of the district concerned.     The  candidates claiming admission under category 5  are required  to submit the certificate of dependence  from  the unit in which parent/spouse is serving.     The  candidates  who apply for  admission  against  this category  will also be considered for admission against  the seats  allocated for Chandigarh/ General Pool to which  they may belong as per their merit."     A perusal of the rule shows that the five categories are mentioned in the order of priority in the descending  order. There is no allocation of seats as between these five  cate- gories. It means that in the first instance, all the  quali- fied  and eligible candidates falling in category 1 will  be given  admission and if any seats are left unfilled,  quali- fied  candidates failing in category 2 will be admitted.  If

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

there  are any seats still left unfilled,  qualified  candi- dates  falling in category 3 will be given admission and  so on. In a given year, it may well happen that all the  avail- able seats reserved for children/spouses of defence  person- nel  are taken away by the candidates in the first or  first and  second  categories. As a matter of fact, for  the  year 1990-91,  only 6 candidates belonging to sub-category 4  out of  90 candidates could be admitted and not the  others  and category  5 ’went unprovided altogether. It is  stated  that all candidates obtaining the specified minimum marks in  the common  entrance  test were treated as qualified  for  being considered for admission.     S.L.P.  16066/91:  The first respondent  in  the  S.L.P. applied  for admission to Punjab Engineering  College  under this  quota. He appeared in the common Entrance  Test  along with  other applicants. The College  Authorities  considered his  case placing him in category 4 since his father was  an Ex-serviceman. He could not, however, be given the admission because  the 15 seats reserved for children and  spouses  of Military/ParaMilitary  Personnel in this College were  allo- cated in the following manner:                 a.   There were three candidates falling  in               category 1 (i.e., children of Defence  Person-               nel who are awardees of gallantry  decoration,               Paramvir  Chakra/Mahavir Chakra, in person  or               posthumously). All the three were given admis-               sion.                b. There were 5 candidates falling in catego-               ry 2. They were admitted.               328                c.  Only one candidate falling in category  3               appeared and was given the seat;                d.   There  were  90  candidates  failing  in               category  4. But only 6 seats  were  available               (nine  seats  having been taken away  by  sub-               categories  a  to  c). These  six  seats  were               allotted on the basis of inter-se merit  among               the  candidates failing in this category.  The               first  respondent  being  at  a  fairly  lower               position in this merit list could not be given               the admission.               No  seats  were  left for  being  allotted  to               candidates failing in category 5. Finding  that he has not been given admission in  this  Col- lege, the first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court  of Punjab and Haryana being C.W.P. No.12644 of  1991. His contention was that his father Major Kuldip Singh  Malik was  awarded  Shaurya  Chakra for acts  of  gallantry,  that Shaurya Chakra is equivalent to Vir Chakra, in all  respects and,  therefore, his case ought to have been  considered  in category  1 and not in category 4. He submitted  that  along with his application for admission he had enclosed a copy of the citation awarded by the President of India to his father showing that his father Major Kuldip Singh Malik was awarded Shaurya Chakra for displaying exemplary courage and  leader- ship  in  the  course of his duties in the  Mizo  Hills.  He complained that two of the candidates admitted under catego- ry 1 have received less marks than he.     The  High  Court has allowed the Writ  Petition  on  the following reasoning:               "According  to Regulation 695 of  the  Defence               Services  Regulations  relating to  the  Army,               issued by the Ministry of Defence,  Government               of  India,  Shaurya Chakra  is  awardable  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

             gallantry  and comes after Ashoka  Chakra  and               Kirti Chakra. Further, according to Regulation               717,  in  order of precedence, this  award  of               Shaurya Chakra is at number thirteen. that  is               immediately  below  Vir Chakra and  Param  Vir               Chakra is at number two and Maha Vir Chakra is               at  number  seven. Despite all this,  the  re-               spondents,  while considering the  candidature               of the petitioner, did not grant him admission               to the Bachelor of Engineering  Course in  the               current  session even though he was higher  in               academic merit as compared to respondent  Nos.               3 and 4 who have been granted such admission.               In reply, the respondents have pleaded that no               doubt  the father of the petitioner was  deco-               rated with Shaurya Chakra award in               329               1969,  but  it is gallantry award and  is  not               strictly covered by the rules, regulations and               the  prospectus of the College, though  it  is               admitted  that both respondents Nos.3  and  4,               who have been granted admission, were lower in               merit  than  the  petitioner, so  far  as  the               academic record is concerned.               After  hearing  the learned  counsel  for  the               parties,  we  find that the  approach  of  the               respondents  in rejecting the  candidature  of               the petitioner is neither legally correct  nor               just  and fair. However, as  respondent  Nos.3               and 4 who are lower in academic merit than the               petitioner,  happen  to  be the  sons  of  the               awardees  of  Vir Chakra and Maha  Vir  Chakra               respectively, it would be unfair if the admis-               sion already granted to them by the Chandigarh               Administration  and  the  Punjab   Engineering               College, Chandigarh, is set aside.               Resultantly, we allow this petition and  issue               a  direction  to respondent Nos. 1  and  2  to               admit  the petitioner against the category  of               sons/daughters of awardees of gallantry  deco-               rations,  without disturbing the admission  of               respondents Nos.3 and 4. In case no such  seat               is available for the petitioner, the  respond-               ents  shall  create  a seat  for  the  purpose               forthwith.  This shall also be deemed to be  a               direction to the Punjab University for accord-               ing necessary approval for the creation of the               additional seat. There shall be no order as to               costs."     The  decision  of the High Court was  rendered  on  28th August, 1991. The present S.L.P. was filed in this court  on 7th  October, 1991. In fact, it appears that  having  waited for one month and not having been admitted in the college in pursuance  of the Judgment, the first respondent  took  pro- ceedings  for Contempt against the College Authorities.  The first respondent, was admitted in the college on 28th  Octo- ber,  1991. It is now stated by his counsel that  the  first respondent  has given up his seat in another college  (Jamia Millia),  on being admitted to this College. The writ  peti- tion  came up for final hearing before us on 15.11.1991.  We disposed  of the SLPs on that day stating that  reasons  for our orders will be given today. S.L.P. No. 16065/91     Respondents  1  and 2 in this S.L.P.  also  applied  for admission  to  Punjab  Engineering College  as  children  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

serving Defence Personnel. They too appeared for the  common Entrance Test along with other applicants. Since the parents of the two respondents were serving Defence Personnel, their case was considered under category 5, As stated herein 330 before, no seats were left for being allocated to candidates falling in category 5. Respondents I and 2 were,  therefore, not  given  admission  in this College  whereupon  they  ap- proached the Punjab and Haryana High Court by way of a  writ petition being C.W.P. No. 12485 of 1991. Their case was that the  categorisation  of  Defence Personnel  was  unjust  and unreasonable in as much as while the children and spouses of serving Defence Personnel are placed in category 5, children and spouses of Exserviceman are placed above them in catego- ry  4.  According to the respondents.  children  of  serving Defence  Personnel  must be preferred over the  children  of Exservicemen.  In a short order, the High Court allowed  the writ petition and directed’that category 5 should be treated as  category 4 and category 4 should be treated as  category 5.  The Court directed that admissions for the current  year (1991-1992)  shall  be made accordingly. The order  of  High court is a short one and may be set out in its entirity:               "After  hearing  the learned counsel  for  the               parties  and having gone through their  plead-               ings, we are of the considered view that  sub-               categories  No. 1, 2 and 3 deserve to  be  re-               tained at their appropriate present places. So               far as sub-categories No.4 and 5 i.e. relating               to  the  sons, daughters and  spouses  of  the               exservice  personnel  ,as well  as  the  sons,               daughters  and  spouses  of  service   Defence               personnel are concerned, we find that the ends               of  justice  would be adequately met  and  the               object  for  which the  reservation  has  been               provided would be achieved if the sons, daugh-               ters and spouses of serving Defence  personnel               are placed at sub-category No.4 i.e. above the               category of Exservicemen. This conclusion  has               been  arrived at by us after  considering  the               circumstances  that the wards and  spouses  of               serving  Defence personnel are at a  disadvan-               tage in the absence of their guardians serving               at far off/distant places defending the  coun-               try vis-a-vis who have retired from the  mili-               tary  and  are now living  with  their  wards.               Keeping  these  considerations  in  view,   we               dispose  of  this writ petition by  issuing  a               direction  to the respondent  Union  Territory               Chandigarh  and Principal, Punjab  Engineering               College,  to  go ahead with the  admission  of               this  reserved category. Therefore, so far  as               such categories 1,2 and 3 are concerned, there               shall  not be any change. However,  we  direct               that so far as sub-category No.4 is concerned,               persons covered in this shall be considered at               No. 5 and those covered in sub-category 5  are               concerned,  shall be considered at No. 4.  The               admission,  which  are going to  be  finalised               tomorrow, shall not be made in accordance with               these  directions.  A  copy of  the  order  be               supplied Dasti also to the learned counsel for               the parties." 331     This  order  was made on 30th August, 1991  whereas  the present  SLP was filed in this Court on 7th  October,  1991.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

These respondents too took proceedings for contempt  against the  college for not implementing the direction of the  High Court.  They  were  admitted on 28th  October,  1991.  These respondents also say that on being admitted to this  college they  have given up their admission in other colleges.  This SLP was heard alongwith SLP. No.16066 of 1991 on 15.11.91. S.L.P. No. 16451 of 1991     This petition for Special Leave is directed against  the order dated 9th October, 1991 passed by a Division Bench  of the  Punjab  ,and  Haryana High Court  dismissing  the  writ petition  filed  by  the petitioner.  The  petitioner  (writ petitioner) applied for admission to the Punjab  Engineering College for the year 1991-92 under category 4 being the  son of an Exserviceman. By virtue of the directions given by the High Court in its order dated 30.8.1991 in C .W.P. No. 12485 of 1991, category 4 became category 5 and category 5  became category 4 and admissions were being made on that basis. The petitioner who fell in category 4 (,as per the prospectus of the  College) and which was now converted to category  5  by virtue  of the decision of the High Court aforesaid  applied to the High Court to consider his case in category 4  itself and grant him admission. His writ petition was dismissed  by the  High  Court on 9th October, 1991 under  a  short  order which reads thus:               "Admissions  are being done as per the  direc-               tions  issued in Civil Writ Petition  No.12485               of  1991,  decided by the  Division  Bench  on               August 30. 1991. In view of the said decision,               we  do not find any merit in  the  contentions               raised  by the learned counsel for  the  peti-               tioner.  The Writ petitions dismissed. A  copy               of this order be given dasti."     The petitioner is in fact questioning the correctness of the directions given by the High Court in C.W.P.No.12485  of 1991 disposed of on August 30, 91.     Counsel  for Chandigarh Administration and  the  College (petitioners  in  SLP’s 16066 and 16065 of  1991)  contended that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in  grant- ing  the impugned directions. He submitted that High  Court, while  exercising  the writ jurisdiction conferred  upon  by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an Appellate  Authority over the rule making authority nor  can it re-write the rules. If the rule or any portion of it  was found  to be bad, the High Court could have struck  it  down and directed the rule-making authority to re-frame the 332 rule  and make admissions on that basis but the  High  Court could  not have either switched the categories  or  directed that  Shaurya Chakra should be treated as equivalent to  Vir Chakra  By  its directions, the High  Court  has  completely upset the course of admissions under this reserved quota and has  gravely affected the chances of candidates  failing  in category  4 by down-grading them as category 5 without  even hearing them. These are good reasons for the  categorisation done by the Administration which was adopted by the College. He submitted that while Paramvir Chakra, Mahavir Chakra  and Vir  Chakra are awarded for gallantry in war, Ashok  Chakra, Kirti  Chakra and Shaurya Chakra are awarded  for  gallantry otherwise  than  in war. Shaurya Chakra was awarded  to  the father of the first respondent in SLP.No. 16066 of 1991  for his gallant conduct in counter-insurgency operations in Mizo Hills.  It  was not a war. He placed, before  us,  the  true extract of order of precedence of awardees. It reads thus:               "TRUE  EXTRACT  OF  ORDER  OF  PRECEDENCE   OF               AWARDS.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

             717. Order of Precedence of Awards-                The order of precedence of various awards  is               as follows:               Bharat Ratna               Param Vir Chakra               Ashoka Chakra               Padma Vibhushan               Padma Bhushan               Param Vishisht Seva Medal               Maha Vir Chakra               Kirti Chakra               Padma Shri               Sarvottam Jeevan Raksha Padak               Ati Vishisht Seva Medal               Vir Chakra               Shaurya Chakra               The President’s police and Fire Service  Medal               for gallantry. Sena/Nao Sena/Vayu Sena Medal               Vishisht Seva Medal               The Police Medal for gallantry               Uttam Jeevan Raksha Padak Wound Medal               The General Service Medal 1947.               Samar Seva Star 1965               Poorvi Star               Paschimi Star               Raksha Medal 2965." 333      Counsel  says that by its directions contained  in  the two  orders impugned herein, the High Court has exercised  a jurisdiction,  which  really did not belong to  it.  We  are inclined to agree with him.      Counsel  for the petitioner in S.L.P.No. 16451 of  1991 supported the aforesaid arguments.     On  the  other hand, the counsel for  respondents  (writ petitioners  in the High Court) in the first two SLPs.  sup- iported  the order of the High Court and  submitted  further that since the said respondents have given up their seats in other  colleges and have been admitted in the  Punjab  Engi- neering College any order throwing them out from the  Punjab Engineering  College,  at  this juncture  would  cause  them irreparable  prejudice. They submitted that  the  Chandigarh Administration and the College authorities have been  sleep- ing over the matter until a contempt petition was filed  and that they moved this Court only after they were summoned in the  Contempt proceedings. They should be held  dis-entitled to any relief on account of laches, submitted the counsel.     We are of the considered opinion that the orders of High Court  are wholly unsustainable. We shall consider both  the directions  separately. Let us first consider SLP  16066  of 1991, arising from C.W.P. 12644/91.     The rule as framed by the Chandigarh Administration  and as  published by the College in its prospectus in  the  year 1991-92  placed in category I children and spouses  of  only those  Defence  Personnel  who were  awardees  of  gallantry decorations of Paramvir Chakra, Mahavir Chakra or Vir Chakra in person or posthumously. It did not include Ashok  Chakra, Kirti Chakra or Shaurya Chakra. The validity of the rule was not  expressly  questioned before the High  Court.  Assuming that  it was so questioned and assuming that the High  Court was  satisfied that the rule was discriminatory and bad  for the  reason  of not including Ashok Chakra  etc.,  the  only course open to it was to strike down the offending rule.  It could also have directed the authorities to reframe the rule and to make admissiions accordingly. High Court however  did not  choose to do so. It merely directed that since  Shaurya

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

Chakra  is  immediately  below Vir Chakra in  the  order  of precedence  and since respondents 3 and 4 in the writ  peti- tion  admitted  under sub-category I  have  obtained  lesser marks than the writ petitioner, he should be given admission without disturbing the admission given to respondents 2  and 3  in that writ petition. The entire reasoning of  the  High Court  has been extracted by us herein above. It shows  that absolutely  no  reason  is assigned for  granting  the  said direction. All that it says is that since Shaurya Chakra  is also awardable for gallantry and is placed imme- 334 diately  below  Vir Chakra, the writ  petitioner  should  be granted  admission.  If  really the High Court  was  of  the opinion that Shaurya Chakra is equivalent to Vir Chakra  and should  be  treated on the same par as Vir  Chakra  then  it should spelt out the position also of Ashok Chakra and Kirti Chakra.  which  are above Shaurya Chakra. According  to  the Rules  notified  children/spouses  of  Ashok  Chakra,  Kirti Chakra & Shaurya Chakra awardees did not fall under category 1 nor under categories 2 or 3. They would fail under catego- ry  4  or  category 5, as the case may  be,  depending  upon whether  their parent/spouse was an ex-service person  or  a serving person. There may have been other candidates who are the children/spouses of Shaurya Chakra awardees and for that matter, Ashok chakra and Kirti Chakra awardees who may  have obtained more marks than the writ petitioner (first respond- ent in SLP 16066 of 1991) but who did not claim a seat under category  1 nor were considered as such. They may  not  have stated  the  fact  of  their  parent/spouse  being  a  Ashok chakra/Kirli  Chakra Shaurya Chakra awardee, nor  filed  the relevant  citation,  since it was not relevant  as  per  the published Rules. Had the proper course been followed, all of them could have applied properly and could have been consid- ered. By saying this we do not mean to say that the Rule  is bad.  We  do not mean to say so at all. There  may  be  good reasons  for  the Rule as published - or there may  not  be. That  is  not the issue. What we are saying is that  if  the High  Court was of the opinion that all the gallantry  awar- dees  (including Ashok, Kirti and Shaurya Chakra) should  be placed  in category 1, it should have said so,  struck  down the  category-and,  may be, directed reframing of  rule  and admissions made on that basis.     Coming  to  SLP 16065 of 1991, the position  appears  to been even worse. Without assigning any reason the High Court has  directed that category 4 should be made category 5  and category  5  should  be made category 4. In  short,  it  has switched  these two categories. Again, we must say  that  if the High Court thought that this categorisation was discrim- inatory and bad it ought to have struck down the categorisa- tion to that extent and directed the authority to’  re-frame the  rule. It would then have been open to the  rule  making authority either to merge these two categories or delete one or  both of them, depending upon/he opinion they would  have formed  on a review of the situation. We must make it  clear again that we express no opinion on the question of validity or  otherwise of the rule. We are only saying that the  High Court  should not have indulged in the exercise of  ’switch- ing’  the  categories,  - and that too  without  giving  any reasons thereafter. Thereby. it has practicably assumed  the rule  of rulemaking authority, or. at any rate, assumed  the role  of  an Appellate Authority. That is  clearly  not  the function  of the High Court acting under Article 226 of  the Constitution  of India. Now, let us notice the  implications and consequences of the said ’switching’. 335

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

    By  directing  that  category 4 should  be  treated  as category  5 and conversely category 5 should be  treated  as category  4, the High Court has prejudicially  affected  the rights  of candidates falling under category 4 without  even hearing  them. It must be remembered that  these  categories are mentioned in the order of priority as emphasised herein- before. A rulemaking authority need not observe the rule  of hearing,  but the High Court exercising its  judicial  power cannot  dispense with the requirement and that is  precisely the  grievance of the petitioner in S.L.P. 16451/91  arising from V.W.P. 14606 of 1991. He was entitled to be  considered under  category 4 (as per the prospectus) whereas by  virtue of  the High Court’s order his category has become  category 5,  the result of which is that no seat may be left for  his category,  whereas  the said category was entitled  to  some seats  at  least according to the Rules as framed  and  pub- lished by the Administration and College. Suffice is to  say that the giving the said direction, while the admission were in  progress, the situation has been confounded  beyond  re- call.     Article  226 of the Constitution of India  empowers  the High  Court to issue to any person or  authority  (including the government) directions, orders or writs including  writs in  the nature of Habeas Corpus, mandamus, Prohibition,  quo warrants and certiorari, or any of them for the  enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.     Though the Article itself does not contain any  restric- tive words, the Courts have, ever the years, evolved certain self-constraints though, we are not bound by the  procedural technicalities  governing  these high prorogative  writs  in English law. As observed by a Constitution Bench in Bassappa v. Nagappa [1955] 1 S.C.R. 250 at 256:               "In  view  of the express  provisions  in  our               Constitution we need not now look back to  the               early history or the procedural technicalities               of  these writs in English law, nor  feel  op-               pressed  by any difference or change of  opin-               ion, expressed in particular cases of  English               Judges.  We can make an order or issue a  writ               in the nature of certiorari in all appropriate               cases   and in appropriate manner, so long  as               we  keep to the broad and fundamental  princi-               ples  that regulate the exercise of  jurisdic-               tion  in the matter of granting such  writ  in               English law."     While this is not the place to delve into or detail  the self-constraints to be observed by the Courts while exercis- ing  the jurisdiction under Article 226, one of them,  which is  relevant  herein, is beyond dispute  viz.  while  acting under Article 226, the High Court does not sit and/or act as an Appellate Authority over the orders/actions of the Subor- dinate Authori- 336 ties/Tribunals. Its’ jurisdiction is supervisory in  nature. One  of the main objectives of this jurisdiction is to  keep the  government and several other authorities and  Tribunals within the bounds of their respective jurisdiction. The High Court  must  ensure that while performing this  function  it does  not  overstep the well-recognized bounds  of  its  own jurisdiction.     Though  we are satisfied that the orders and  directions made by the High Court are totally unsupportable in law, the subsequent  developments  dissuade us  from  allowing  these SLPs. As stated above, the three  respondents-writ-petition-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

ers (first respondent in SLP. 16066/91 and respondents I and 2  in  SLP. 16065/91) have been admitted into  this  college (Punjab  Engineering College) on 28th October, 1991,  where- upon they have given up the seats which they had obtained in other  colleges.  This statement of theirs is  not  disputed either  by  the  Chandigarh Administration  or  the  college authorities. Depriving the said respondents of their  admis- sion in this college at this stage would result in grave and irreparable prejudice to them. We think that the Administra- tion  and College authorities ought to have acted with  more alacrity and approached this Court earlier than they did. By the  time, these SLPs were taken up by us and stay  granted, the said respondents were already admitted into the  College and,  they say, they had given up their seats in  the  other colleges. On this score alone, we decline to interfere  with the orders in C.W .P. 12644/91 and 12485/91.     Now coming to SLP 16451 of 1991, the situation is  this: By  virtue of the orders of the High Court,  three  students who  were not entitled to admission according to rules  have been  given admission against the three vacancies which  had arisen since the finalization of the admissions. The college authorities  say that but for the orders of the High  Court, these  three  vacancies would have gone to the  first  three candidates in the waiting list. The petitioner in SLP  16451 of 1991 says that he is one such person in the waiting  list and  he would have obtained admission but for the  admission given to the three candidates in pursuance of the High Court orders.  We  do not know whether the  petitioner’s  case  is true.  All  the same, we think it appropriate  to  make  the following  direction: the college authorities  shall  create three  more  seats in the said course and  admit  the  first three  available students in the waiting list against  those seats.  The Chandigarh Administration shall pass the  neces- sary  orders in this behalf. Action in terms of this  direc- tion shall be taken forthwith by the Chandigarh  Administra- tion and the college authorities.     Before we part with this case we wish to make an  obser- vation.  In  matters  of this nature where  the  High  court directs students to be admitted in Educational Institutions. it would be advisable if the High Court stays 337 the  operation  of its order for a period of about  3  to  4 weeks,  if  a request therefor is made  by  the  Educational Institution or the State, as the case may be.       SLPs disposed of accordingly. R.P.                                               Petitions disposed of. 338