HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 1506 of 2008. alongwith CWP No. : 1488 of 2008. CWP No.: 1442 of 2008 Decided on: 30.3.2009. CWP No.1506 of 2008 Sugum Sharma ……… Petitioner. Versus H.P. Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and others ………Respondents. CWP No.1488 of 2008 Vivek Thakur ……… Petitioner. Versus Chaudhary Shrawan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and others ………Respondents. CWP No.1442 of 2008 Ruchika Kapoor ……… Petitioner. Versus Chaudhary Shrawan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioners: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel and (in all the petitions) Mr.Anup Rattan, Advocates. For respondent No.1: (in all the petitions) Mr.Lokender Pal Thakur, Advocate. For respondents No.2 to 6: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. (in all the petitions) Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Per Surjit Singh, J.(Oral): By this common order, we are disposing of three writ petitions i.e. CWPs No.1506 of 2008, 1488 of 2008 and 1442 of 2008, in which common questions of law and facts are involved. First, we may notice the facts. For the academic session 2008-09, Chaudhary Shrawan Kumar Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, respondent No.1 herein, issued a prospectus advertising seats for admission to various degree and post degree courses. One of the degree courses offered, vide this prospectus was Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. Total number of seats advertised was 35. Twenty five seats were reserved for the candidates, who were bona fide residents of Himachal Pradesh, five for the candidates from all over the country and remaining five as self financing seats. Petitioners in all these three cases applied against self financing seats. Entrance test was conducted. Merit of all the three petitioners in these cases was assessed at a much lower level than most of the candidates, who had applied against self financing seats. Therefore, they were not admitted to the said seats, but five other candidates higher in merit were admitted. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 University took a decision, on the demand of the public, to add five more seats and offer those seats to the already qualified candidates of all the categories, as self financing seats. Those, who were assessed higher than the present petitioners merit-wise in the entrance test, but under the categories different from self financing category, were admitted. They have been made party to all these three petitions. Petitioners felt aggrieved by this action of respondent No.1 University. Their claim is that these additional five seats ought to have been offered to those candidates who had initially applied against self financing seats and not to the candidates of other categories. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. - 3 - No doubt, the five seats which were filled, in addition to the initially advertised thirty five seats, were treated as self financing seats, but that, by itself, did not give any right to the candidates who had applied for self financing seats because, as per the prospectus, only five seats were advertised as self financing seats and the candidates of that category were admitted against those seats, in accordance with the order of merit in the entrance test. Additional five seats were beyond the scope of the prospectus, or say, were not part of the advertised seats and, therefore, the candidates, from none of the three categories, had any preemptory right to those seats. The University filled those five seats on the basis of overall merit in the entrance test, meaning thereby that they admitted the best available qualified candidates. This cannot be said to be an act of arbitrariness or discrimination. As a matter of fact, we feel that this was a right decision on the part of the University, which is an instrumentality of the State, atleast in the matter of imparting education, because it is the duty of the State to provide educational facilities to the most meritorious students. Above stated position apart, the matter pertains to the academic session that started a year back and now the petitioners cannot be admitted to study with the candidates who have already completed one year of study. In view of the above stated position, all the writ petitions are dismissed. In view of the final disposal of the main petitions, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in all the writ petitions, shall also stand disposed of. (Surjit Singh), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), March 30, 2009. Judge. (TILAK)