LPA1917 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1917 of 2011 Date of decision 17.11.2011 Joint Admission Committee-2011 PEC . Appellant Versus Harnoor Kaur Mann and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Ms. Swatantar Kapoor , Advocate for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR,J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 6.9.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner- respondent no.1. It is conceded position that inter-se merit between petitioner- respondent no.1 and other student Harjinder Singh- respondent no. 8 needed to be re-assessed for admission to B.E. course under the sports category. The inter-se merit is determined in accordance with clause 2.2.4.6. The writ petitioner- respondent no.1 has one participation and two second position and in all she has three participations. Respondent no.1 has one second position and therefore has only one participation. On the basis of the aforesaid position, the learned Single Judge has concluded as under: “The gradation policy, when read along with clause 2.2.4.6 and sub clauses (a) to (f), in my considered opinion, does not lend support to the interpretation placed by the University. The LPA1917 of 2011 2 respondent-University has equated unequals by ignoring that gradation and inter se merit is to be determined on the basis of sports performance over a period of three years. The petitioner has one participation and two runner up positions, whereas respondent no.8 has one runner up and no participation . To equate one participation and two runner up positions, with one runner up position and no participation would, in essence, equate unequals and confine consideration to the performance of one year, thereby negating the performance of three years. The opening words of clause 2.2.4.6 clearly provide that inter se gradation is to be resolved by resorting to sub clauses (a) to (f) in descending order. The expression "descending order" does not equate a participation and two runner ups with one runner up and no other position or participation. Sub Clauses (a) to (f) merely provide that the position attained in (a) shall prevail over position attained in (b) and so on and so forth. Sub clauses (a) to (f) do not provide that if two candidates have attained the same position, they shall be equated even if the other candidate has attained this position more than once. It is true that, both the petitioner and respondent no.8, have a runner up position each, but as the petitioner has two runner up positions, in two different years and in two different categories, namely, under 17 and under 19, she would necessarily prevail over respondent no. 8. If the interpretation placed by the University is accepted, it would equate a lesser sports person with a better sports person, in essence, rewarding a lesser sports LPA1917 of 2011 3 person while equating him or her with a better sports person. The object of the policy is to reward sports performances over a period of three years preceding the date of consideration and to select the better sports person. To illustrate this point, a reference may be made to sub clause (e) which reads as follows: " 2.2.4.6 XX XX XX In the matter of rating inter-se, preference in the same grade shall be given in the following descending order, namely, (a) XX XX XX (b) XX XX XX (c) XX XX XX (d) XX XX XX (e) "Number of times participated..." The said sub clause (e) clearly provides that preference is to be given to the number of times participated, thereby clearly setting out that a candidate who has more participations, shall rank higher while determining inter se merit. The respondents have, in my considered opinion, committed an error in equating the petitioner with respondent no.8. The sports performance of the petitioner must, therefore, rate her over and above respondent no. 8, while determining their inter se merit.” 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. Once under clause 2.2.4.6(e) a specific provision has been LPA1917 of 2011 4 made by taking into account the number of times of participation then there was no possibility for the appellant to ignore the aforesaid provision and grade the writ petitioner- respondent no.1 over and above respondent no.8 while determining their inter-se seniority under the sports quota because the writ petitioner- respondent no.1 had one participation and two runners up position and whereas respondent no. 8 had only runner up without any participation. The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the writ petitioner- respondent no.1 has not attended the classes. However, that would not make any difference because if a student has not attended the classes it may result into shortage of lectures which may dis- entitle her to take the examination. Admittedly, no order in that respect has been passed by the appellant or respondent no.2-College. Moreover, learned counsel for the appellant has accepted that the interpretation given by the learned Single Judge to clause 2.2.4.6.(e) is acceptable to the appellant. Once the aforesaid position is taken up by the counsel for the appellant then in any case no ground is left for admission of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Rajiv Narain Raina) 17.11.2011 Judge okg