Dharam Veer Singh Sayar vs Army Institute of Law Patiala

R.L. Anand, J.—By this judgment. I will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9033 of 2000, 9106 of 2000, 9422 of 2000 and 10082 of 2000 as in the opinion of this Court, all these four writ petitions can be disposed of by one judgment because common question of law and fact is involved in each one of the writ petitions.

For the sake of facts. I have taken the same from Civil Writ Petition No. 9033 of 2000 titled Dharm Veer Singh Sayal v. Army Institute of Law and others.

The petitioner, Shri Dharm Veer Singh Sayal, of Writ Petition No. 9033 of 2000 has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the respondents praying that the decision of respondent No. I reserving 48 seats out of 60 seats i.e. 80% in favour of wards of the army personnel for admission to LL.B. in the Army Institute of Law, Patiala, is contrary in the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It was further prayed that action of respondent No. 1 granting admission in LL.B, Course to respondent No. 2 under the Punjab resident category, in preference to the petitioner ignoring the fact that the petitioner applied under Punjab resident category by enclosing the Punjab resident certificate in terms of letter dated 6.6.1996 issued by the competent authority along with admission form and is higher in merit than that of respondent No. 2 by mis- interpreting the judgment of Hon''ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 8190 of 2000 titled Mohit Garg y. Army Institute of Law, be quashed being arbitrary, discriminatory, and against the principles of natural justice and the petitioner has further prayed that direction be given to respondent No. 1 to grant admission to the petitioner in LL.B. Course as per his merit as Punjab Resident Category and that the petitioner may be allowed to attend the classes.

The case set up by the petitioner is that he is the citizen of India and resident of State of Punjab and as such he is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. The Army Institute of Law has been established since 1999 by the Indian Army under the Army Welfare Education Society to run five year integrated B. A. LL.B. Degree Course. The institute is affiliated to the Punjabi University, Patiala and Bar Council of India has given the approval for the affiliation with effect from the Academic Session 1999-2000. This institute issued a Prospectus for the year 2000-2001 and as per the Prospectus last date for submission of application form for Entrance Test was 31.3.2000. The prospectus deals with the eligibility for admission to the seats for the wards of Army personnel/children of Punjab residents and All India General Category. According to the petitioner as per Rules 2, 4, 3 of the Prospectus, which deals with certificate of reserved category, following is the requirement ;-

"To claim, the benefits of ward of Army personnel category/Punjab residents/All India General Category, the required certificate shall be submitted alongwith the application form for the Entrance Test. In case, an applicant fails to submit the required certificate alongwith the Application Form, he/she shall be considered only in General Category."

As per Regulation 4.2 of the Prospectus, which deals with the eligibility criteria for the children of Punjab residents following is the requirement :-

"To claim the benefit of Punjab Resident Category, the applicant will have to attach the required certificate referred to in "Annexure-M" alongwith Applications Forms".

The Government of Punjab vide letter dated 6.6.1996 issued guidelines for the grant of residence certificate for the bona fide residents of the State of Punjab. As per this letter children/wards of the employees of the Punjab Government posted in or outside the Punjab State or working on deputation having attest three years of service have been included as one of the category of bona fide residents of the State of Punjab and the certificate to this effect is to be issued by the respective Head of the Department. The petitioner of this writ petition alleges that his father is working as Excise and Taxation Officer and is posted in the Legal Cell, Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and as such he is entitled to get the bona fide resident certificate of State of Punjab in terms of the Government letter dated 6.6.1996 and accordingly he applied and was issued the certificate by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab on 30.3.2000.

The petitioner passed his 10 + 2 Examination in 1st Division. He applied for admission against the seats reserved for the residents of the Punjab in terms of the letter dated 6.6.1996. He attached certificate of Punjab resident with his application form and submitted before the expiry of last date fixed for submission of application form i.e. 31.3.2000. The petitioner was allotted Roll No. 38. He appeared in the written test. The result was declared on 8.6.2000. He secured 182 marks. The petitioner was surprised to receive the result card in which his rank was mentioned as 28 in general category even though the petitioner was entitled to be considered in the category of Punjab residents. I le applied under the Punjab resident category by enclosing the required certificate of residence as per the provisions of Prospectus. On seeing his result card petitioner visited the office of Director, Army Institute of Law, Patiala to know the reasons for considering his claim under the General Category. He was told that he had not submitted the affidavit of his father to the effect that neither he nor his children have availed the benefit of being resident in any other State. According to the petitioner, there was no requirement for filing an affidavit along with application form. He was only required to submit a certificate being resident of the State of Punjab issued by the competent authority in terms of the letter dated 6.6.1996 and there was no condition of submission of any affidavit along with application form. Since the respondent insisted so the father of the petitioner submitted the requisite affidavit immediately. It was also brought to the notice of the authorities that petitioner was not required under the Prospectus to submit the affidavit in order to claim the benefit under the Punjab resident category at the time of the submission of the application form so his claim deserves to be considered under the Punjab resident category only.

The respondent rectified the mistake by accepting the claim of the petitioner and the name of the petitioner was included under the Punjab Resident Category and he was called for interview under the Punjab resident category with Rank No, 18. He was asked to appear for interview along with the documents in original to claim the benefit of Punjab Resident Category. The petitioner went to appear for interview on 12.7.2000 as per the schedule fixed in the Prospectus but he was not interviewed. On inquiry, the petitioner came to know that one Civil Writ Petition No. 8190 of 2000 Mohit Garg v. Army Institute of Law, was filed in the High Court in which the action of the Army institute of law in revising the merit by including the names of those candidates who have submitted their Punjab resident certificate after the last date of submission of application forms was challenged and High Court directed them not to revise the earlier merit. The petitioner brought the matter to their notice that he was entitled to be considered under Rank 18 as be applied and submitted the requisite certificate as required in the Prospectus along with the application form before the last date of the submission of the application form. In spite of the repeated requests he was not interviewed and the candidates who were lower in merit than the petitioner were interviewed and granted admission and this action of respondent No. 1 in granting admission to those candidates who have lower rank than that of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be set aside.

This is the broad case which has been set up by each of the petitioners in all the four writ petitions.

Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents. A preliminary objection was taken by the institute that it is neither a State nor instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as it is being funded by the Army Welfare Education Society which is a registered body. This body has been established with the sole object to impart legal education to the children/wards of the Army Officers/Officials and to prepare them for a degree course of Bachelor of Law keeping in view the difficulty and hardships being faced by the Army personnel due to frequent transfers and their deployment in the field and border areas to defend the borders of the country. The present merit list has been prepared in pursuance of the judgment, orders and strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the High Court in C. W.P. No. 8190 of 2000 titled Mohit Garg v. Army Institute of Law, Patiala decided by a Division Bench on 10.7.2000 and the present petitioner has been placed at the merit list in accordance with the directions of the Court.

On merit, it was submitted that in accordance with paras 2.4.3 read with paras 4.2 and Annexure 11 of the Prospectus, there was a requirement for submitting an affidavit along with an application form on or before 31.3.2000 in addition to the residence certificate. The certificate submitted by the petitioner is not relevant since it has been filed after 31.3.2000.

The affidavit dated 13.6.2000 was submitted by the father of the petitioner in June 2000. It was considered but in the case of Mohit Garg (supra) the revised merit list was quashed because the affidavit was submitted after the cut off date which was 31.3.2000. The respondent-authority took a sympathetic view keeping in view The consideration of the Punjab Government letter dated 14.6.1999 and gave an additional chance to the affected candidates to produce residence certificate and affidavit at the time of interview but on account of the decision of Mohit Garg''s case the petitioner was placed in general category. Justifying its action respondent No. 1 submitted that granting admission to the private respondents under Punjab resident category, was legal and valid and was in conformity with the directions and orders of the High Court dated 10.7.2000. The Judgment of the High Court has been religiously obeyed and complied with.

In short, the defence of the institute is that since the petitioner has not complied with the requirement of the Prospectus as contained in Rules 2.4.3 and 4.2, in one go, therefore the petitioner was placed in the general category.

Separate written statement was filed by the private respondents and it was pleaded that Prospectus has the force of law and a candidate who seeks the admission is to get the admission only on the basis of criteria laid down in the Prospectus. As per the Prospectus issued for admission in the respondent- institute, the candidates seeking reservation had to attach the requisite certificate as laid down in the Prospectus. A perusal of the eligibility criteria laid down shows that prospectus refers to certificates which were required to be submitted along with the application form and the said certificates find mention in the instructions dated 6.6.1996 issued by the Government of Punjab and according to these instructions the candidate is required to submit an affidavit as also a residence certificate to the effect that candidate is a bona fide resident of State of Punjab to the institute. It was further submitted that the eligibility for admission to course has to be seen in accordance with the Prospectus before the entrance examination and that admission has to be made on the basis of the instructions given in the Prospectus as the same have the force of law. It is the stand of the respondents that the petitioner only submitted the residence certificate and did not submit the affidavit as envisaged by the Punjab Government Instructions, therefore, he was rightly considered under the All India General Category and not the Punjab resident category. The respondent also relied upon the observations of the High Court made in Civil Writ Petition No. 8190 of 2000 titled Mohit Garg v. Army institute of Law.

In short, the stand of the private respondents is that the petitioner is not entitled to be considered under the Punjab resident category as he had submitted only the certificate of residence along with his application form whereas Regulation 4.2 of the Prospectus also requires submission of affidavit, which means submissions of residence certificate and also an affidavit to the effect that the person :s a citizen of India and has not taken the benefit of reservation of any other State. The last date of the submission of the application form was 31.3.2000. The petitioner did not attach the certificate as required under the instructions of the Punjab Government dated 6.6.1996 and, therefore, he has been rightly placed in All India General category. With this major defence the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.

I have heard S/Shri O.K. Chatrath, P.S. Patwalia, Ashwani Talwar and Amit Rawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and S/Shri S.K. Pi-pat, Sr. Advocate, Rajiv Atma Ram, Shri P.K. Gupta, Ms. Neena Madan, R.K. Malik, K.S. Sidhu and Ravi Kapur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

We all know that the terms of the Prospectus carry the force of law. For the purpose of these writ petitions two regulations of the Prospectus are very material. Of course, my attention was also invited to other regulations of the Prospectus such as Regulation 2.3, Regulations, Regulation 4.1 and 4.3. Regulation 2.4.3 talks of a certificate of reserved category. Before \\ proceed further I may state that there are 60 seats in this Course. 48 are meant for the wards of army personnel, 9 are meant for the Punjab residents and 3 are for All India Genera] Category. A reading of the schedule of the course would show that last date for submission of the application form for Entrance Test was 31.3.2000. The date of entrance test was 21.5.2000 and the last date of submission of admission form was 30.6.2000. So in order to get the benefit of the reserved category such as Punjab resident, All India General Category and even the wards of army personnel, the candidate was supposed to give a certificate of the reserved category. This is the intention of regulation 2.4.3. If he gives the certificate along with the application form before 31.3.2000, in the opinion of this Court, it is a sufficient and enough compliance for the purpose of the entrance test. To quote Regulation 2.4.3 it is stated as follows :-

"To claim the benefits of ward of Army Personnel Category/Punjab Residents/All India General Category, the required certificate shall be submitted along with the Application Form for the Entrance Test. In case, an applicant fails to submit the required certificate alone with the application From, he/she shall be considered only in General Category."

Thus, this Rule admits no other interpretation than the one that in order to claim the benefit of reserved category the candidate was supposed to give one certificate before 31.3.2000 and this certificate was to be attached with the Application Form. This rule does not talk or specify that any affidavit was also required to be filed by the guardian or by the ward to the effect that the ward has not taken the advantage of this category in any other institution as is the case of the respondents.

Here, I would like to discuss Regulation 4.2 of the Prospectus upon which a lot of stress has been given by the respondents. If we read the Head Notes of this Regulation, it only talks of eligibility criteria for the children of the Punjab residents. It states "to claim the benefit of Punjab Resident Category, the applicant will have to attach the required certificates referred to in "Annexure-II", along with Application Forms". This Regulation "nowhere talks that in case the affidavit is not attached, the candidate shall be treated in the general category. It also does not talk of any affidavit of Annexure-II. In fact Regulation 4.2 only defines the eligibility criteria and nothing more. Even this Regulation does not say what would be the consequences if the desired certificates are not attached with the application form.

Now, it is to be seen who has complied with the above observations of this Court.

First of all, I would like to take the case of the client of Shri Amit Rawal, who filed the writ petition No. 10082 of 2000 Rahul Rampal v. Army Institute of Law. The residence certificate which was attested by the Tehsildar is at page 42 of this writ petition. This was attested on 8.5.2000 i.e. much after 31.3.2000 and, therefore, it was never filed along with the application form on or before 31.3.2000. I have already stated above that the Prospectus has the force of law and, therefore, any non-compliance before the cut off date will render the application form of a particular candidate as invalid as per the intention of the Prospectus. The learned counsel Shri Amit Rawal, appearing on behalf of this writ petitioner wanted to take the support form Annexure P-8, the instructions of the State Government dated 14.6.1999 and submitted that as per term No. 3 of para No. 2 of these instructions, if a candidate complies with the formalities of the institute well before the date of the interview his application shall be deemed to be valid one.

I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for Rahul Ram Pal, petitioner. To me the terms of the Prospectus are the magna carta and if those terms are not complied with the consequences are very fatal. The counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amit Rawal also drew my attention to a judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as AIR 1980 S.C. 1230, Rajiv Kapoor and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , Rajiv Kapoor and others v. State of Haryana and others to give life to his writ petition but I am not in a position to follow these judgments as these judgments are off the point. I have already stated above and I am stating here again at the cost of the repletion that I have to give respect to the Prospectus which requires a residence certificate by a competent authority along with the application form and such certificate was to be furnished to the institute before 31.3.2000. In this case there is non- compliance of Regulation 2.4.3. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Reverting to the other three Writ Petitions of Sabina Garg, Dharambir Singh Syal and that of Shri Aalok Jagga, in my opinion these writ petitions deserve to be allowed because in all these three cases the requisite certificate has been filed along with the application form.

For example, in the case of Ms. Sabina Garg, not only the certificate has been furnished but also the affidavit. The certificate is Annexure P-2 and the affidavit is Annexure P-1. In the case of Sri Aalok Jagga, the certificate is Annexure P-1 in which it has been certified the Deputy Commissioner that Shri Ashok Paul Jagga, Advocate son of Shri Rattan Raul Jagga, Advocate, now resident of House No. 755, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh and father of Mr. Aalok Jagga also resident of House No. 755, Sector 22-A, Chandigarh has residence on Kot Kapura Road Muktsar for a period of more than 5 years from 1955 to 1963 and then from 1965 to 1969. He is now working as an Advocate at Chandigarh.

Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, learned counsel for the respondents attacked this certificate by stating that it is established that Shri Ashok Paul Jagga was residing in Chandigarh and that he was not doing any employment in Punjab or adopting any profession in the State of Punjab. He submitted that Mr. Ashok Paul Jagga is residing in Chandigarh but I am not in a position to accept his contention as the contents of the affidavit indicate that Mr. Ashok Paul Jagga was a resident of Punjab and this is a sufficient compliance for the purpose of Regulation 2.4.3.

Shri Dharm Veer Singh Sayal has also placed on record the certificate which is Annexure P-2 issued by Shri Sudhir Mittal, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab certifying that Shri Dharam Singh son of Shri Kundan Singh father of Mr. Dharam vir Singh is an employee of the Excise and Taxation Department of Punjab Government and that he was working as Excise and Taxation Officer and was posted in Legal Cell, Excise and Taxation Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and he had more than three years to his credit. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that all the application forms of the present petitioners were not attached with the affidavits before 31.3.2000, still this affidavit could be furnished at the time of the admission but so far as the residence certificate is cornered this certificate was required to be furnished with the application form prior to 31.3.2000. Since the residence certificate of the client of Shri Rawal was even procured after 31.3.2000, therefore, his submission of the affidavit prior to 30.6.2000 will not entitle that petitioner to get admission in the Course.

It was also one of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that admission of Mr. Mohit Garg cannot be upset by Single Bench in view of the earlier decision passed in C.W.P. No. 8190 of 2000 decided on 10.7.2000, passed by the Hon''ble Division Bench.

I have considered this submission. I am of the opinion that the admission of Shri Mohit Garg can only be set aside by a competent Court of jurisdiction. The writ petition of Shri Mohit Garg was decided by the Motion Bench at the motion stage itself by the Hon''ble Division Bench. The Hon''ble Division Bench in the present case admitted the writ petition and as per the Rules of the High Court such writ petition has to come before the Single Bench first for adjudication. Nevertheless the Single Bench is competent Court of jurisdiction and, therefore, single Bench has the right to upset the admission of Shri Mohit Garg if it is against the provisions and regulations.

The summary of the above discussion is that Writ Petition No. 10082 of 2000 Rahul Rampal v. Army Institute of Law and others, is hereby dismissed while the three writ petition Nos. 9422 of 2000 Aalok Jagga v. Army Institute of Law and others, 9033 of 2000 Dharm Veer Singh Sayal v. Army Institute of Law and another and 9106 of 2000 Sabina Garg v. Army Institute of Law and others, are hereby allowed. The admission of the private respondents to the five years B.A. LL.B. Course 2000 is hereby quashed as I am of the opinion that the three writ petitioners are more meritorious than that of the private respondents. Directions are given to the institute to draw a fresh seniority with regard to the category of Punjab residents and give admission to the eligible writ petitioners according to their merit and seniority, it was also told to this Court during the course of submissions that two seats are lying vacant and two out of the three writ petitioners can be adjusted by the institute and in order to accommodate the third writ petitioner the institute may be directed to create new seat. It was also the request of the respondents that with the allowing of the three writ petitions, the admission of on going students who are getting the studies since July 2000, is likely to be disturbed. I have considered this submission. Law has to take its own course. It is for the institute to see whether any scat can be created for the benefit of that student/students who is/are likely to be affected by this judgment. This Court cannot give any direction to the institute for the creation of any seal.

As staled above, three Writ Petition Nos. 9422 of 2000, 9033 of 2000 and 9106 of 2000 are allowed and one writ petition No. 10082 of 2000, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Petitions allowed.