CWP No. 11128 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 11128 of 2009 Date of decision 10 .8.2009 Dinesh Goyal ... Petitioner Versus Vice Chancellor, Panjab University, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr.Amit Goyal ,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate for the respondents 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner who is graduate in B.Tech had applied for admission to the post graduation course in Gandhian and Peace Studies at Punjab University, Chandigarh. In June, 2009, admission notice was published in the leading newspapers including the 'The Tribune' announcing the last date of filing application which was fixed as 6.7.2009. The notice clearly stipulated that details governing all aspects of admission of various courses are furnished in the Punjab University Calendar and Hand Book of Information ( R/5.1). The petitioner had applied vide his application dated 6.7.2009 and he was fully aware that being B.Tech. he was not eligible for admission to the aforesaid course. He was accordingly informed by the department on 14.7.2009 that he was not eligible at the time of interview and also on 15.7.2009 he was apprised about his ineligibility. The normal admission without late fee to the post graduation course commenced on 17.7.2009 and concluded on 21.7.2009. The instant petition was filed on CWP No. 11128 of 2009 2 24.7.2009 which was returned by the Registry with some objection on 25.7.2009. The petitioner again re-filed the petition on 27.7.2009 which came up for hearing on 28.7.2009. The principal attack on Clause (viii) of Rule 7.1 of Regulation 3.1 (Vol. II) is on the ground that once a person with B.A./B.Sc/ B.Com with 2nd class has been made eligible for admission to Gandhian and Peace Studies then a person with qualification like B.Tech. cannot be excluded. The aforesaid rule is extracted below: “ 7.1 Admission to P.G.courses in the Faculty of Art and languages. Admission to M.A. Part I Regulation 3.1 given at page no. 7 of PU Cal. Vol. III Eligibility xx xx xx xx xx xx (viii)For Gandhian and Peace Studies a person who has passed: (a) B.A./ B./Com/ obtaining 45% marks in any of the following subjects: a) History b) Political Science c) Economics d) Philosophy e) psychology f) Public Administration g) Geography h) sociology or (b) Diploma or Post Graduate diploma in Gandhian Studies or M.A. Examination in the above subjects or B.A./B.Sc/ B.Com in second class shall be eligible.” CWP No. 11128 of 2009 3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their able assistance. The petitioner was aware in June, 2009 when notice was published in the Tribune (R.5.1) that he was not eligible because degree of B.Tech does not figure in the eligibility qualifications. He was further apprised of his ineligibility on 6.7.2009, 14.7.2009 and 15.7.2009. The interviews were concluded as counseling was from 17.7.2009 to 21.7.2009. The writ petition has obviously been filed after the admissions are over. There is neither any material placed on record nor argument raised before us to conclude that Rule 7.1 of the Rules does not answer the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. The age old principle is to presume in favour of the constitutionality of a provision unless proven otherwise. However, in the present case if it is assumed that rule 7.1 of the Rules does not meet the constitutional requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution then it could not be concluded that the petitioner alone would become eligible for taking admission to the post graduate course of Gandhian and Peace Studies. It would require the University to issue a fresh notice inviting applications from all the candidates having qualification of B.Tech. for admission to this course. The applicants may be even more meritorious than the petitioner and some admitted candidates may also have to make rooms for them. It would be only then that the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution would stand satisfied. The admissions are already over by the time the writ petition was filed. The petitioner has allowed to develop a situation which is his own creation. To disturb the admission of candidates who are already admitted and are in the classes would not be fair especially when those candidates are not before us. CWP No. 11128 of 2009 4 Therefore, we are not inclined at such a belated stage to examine the validity of the aforesaid rule at the instance of such a lazy petitioner. The petition infact is belated and any interference with the career of the candidates already admitted to the course would be unwarranted. It would amount to writing the rules of the game after the game is over. There is thus no merit in the petition. For the reasons afore mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Jaswant Singh) 10.8.2009 Judge okg