LPA No.2829 OF 2001 (O & M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No.2829 OF 2001 (O & M) Date of Decision:-19.05.2010 Kunal Monga (Minor) ....Appellant. Versus The State of Punjab & Another. ....Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Saini, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate for Respondent no.2. Sh. D.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General Punjab for the respondent-State. HEMANT GUPTA, J The present Letter Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.11.2000 whereby the claim of the appellant for admission against 85% seats meant for Punjab domicile students and who have passed qualifying examination from Punjab was declined. The appellant appeared in qualifying examination conducted by CBSE as a student of S.N. Senior Secondary Model School, Sector 22, Chandigarh in the year 1999. The father of 1 LPA No.2829 OF 2001 (O & M) the appellant is a domicile of Punjab which is apparent from certificate of domicile annexure P-3. He is employed with State Bank of India, posted at Chandigarh. The appellant appeared for Joint Entrance Test 1999 held by Punjab State Technical Educationand Industrial Training, on 16th May 1999. He secured 391 marks in the said test. The category wise reservation of seats for admission to the institutions located in Punjab other than Central Tool Room, Ludhiana is as under:- “85% of the total seats shall be filed out of the candidates who ar ebonafide residents of Punjab Stat and who have passed their qualifying examination from recognised institutions located in Punjab. This also includes the wards of employess of Punjab State/Government of India who are otherwise domiciled residents of Punjab but their wards on account of their posting may have passed their qualifying examination from any place in India. Remaining 15% of the seats shall be filled out of candidates who are residents of Punjab but are living outside Punjab. These candidates shall produce Punjab Residence Certificate and certificate in support of their reserved category, if applicable”. The claim of the appellant was that as his father is the employee of a Bank, a Government of India undertaking, therefore, he is entitled to a seat against 85% of seats so reserved in the advertisement even though he has not passed qualifying examination from Punjab. The learned Single Judge has declined such claim of admission on the ground that the employee of a Bank cannot be treated as employee of Government of India and thus appellant cannot be admitted 2 LPA No.2829 OF 2001 (O & M) against 85% of seats which are required to be filled up from the candidates who are bonafide residents of Punjab State and who have passed their qualifying examination from recognised institution located in Punjab. The learned counsel for the appellant has admitted that father of the appellant cannot be treated to be an employee of Government of India, as he is an emplyee of a Bank. The wards of those employees of Punjab state who are domicile of Punjab but have not passed qualifying examination from the State of Punjab cannot be considered for admission against 85% seats. The appellant does not satisfy the eligibility conditions for admission against 85% quota. Admittedly the appellant stands admitted against 15% seats meant to be filled up from amongst residents of Punjab but who have passed the qualification examination from outside the State. In view of the said fact, we do not find that there is any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Learned Single Judge which may warrant interference of this court in appeal. Dismissed. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) JUDGE ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE May 19, 2010 Vinay 3