CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 31 , 2010 Hemakshi Meena .....Petitioner VERSUS National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Virk, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner Hemakshi Meena is a girl, struggling to get admission with respondent No.1. Ideally she should have been spending this time in the institution for studies. She, however, is before the court in an uncertain state about her future. Her worries and problems are being compounded by unhelpful attitude of the University by raising one technical objection after another. Unfortunate part is that the University is doing so despite the fact that the seats are lying vacant. University would project this case to be such as if the petitioner has committed a blunder of century. This is the attitude when he petitioner was allotted seat in computer CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 -2- engineering on the basis of on-line counselling. This has been subsequently cancelled in a manner which may not, thus, sound fair. The petitioner, belongs to Schedule Tribe Category and had appeared for All India Engineering Entrance Examination 2010. She obtained No.428610 in All India ranking for admission to B.E./B.Tech Engineering. On the basis of her ranking, respondent No.2-Board had issued a provisional seat to her in Computer Engineering with respondent No.1-Institute. As per the schedule of admission, the petitioner was required to report for admission to any admission centre between 5th July to 9th July, 2010. Accompanied by her father, she had appeared at the respondent admission centre and met the concerned official on 8.7.2010. As per the petitioner, she had submitted her all documents along with the requisite fee by way of two demand drafts of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.24,000/- bearing Nos.505482 and 505483 dated 6.7.2010 drawn at State Bank of Bikaner and Jair in favour of Chairman, Central Counselling Board- 2010 (for short ‘CCB’), Nagpur (respondent No.2). The petitioner has averred that the drafts along with the documents were duly handed over to Mr. Devinder Gaur in Room No. L-3, NIT, Kurukshetra (emphasis supplied). Upon being assured that the petitioner was granted admission, she had left the place. The petitioner states that no receipt, was given to her and she was asked to go back. Accordingly, the petitioner could not anticipate that this was a calculated move to oust her from the admission list and that the aforesaid official had acted in a mala-fide manner perhaps to adjust their own candidate. The petitioner had left her land line number CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 -3- and so also her mobile number on the documents, but she did not receive any call or information about admission. On 9.7.2010, the petitioner learnt that her candidature was not being considered. The father of the petitioner, therefore, faxed a message to the respondent No.1, which was received well in time. Highlighting all these facts, the petitioner has prayed for allotment of a seat, but was informed on 13.7.2010 that the allotment of seat to her has been cancelled on the ground that she did not report to the admission centre. The father of the petitioner again represented to the respondents vide representation dated 14.7.2010. In response, he was informed that the petitioner would be considered in the 2nd round of counselling. However, due to some inadvertence on her part, the petitioner could not appear during the second round of counselling. The petitioner thus is being denied admission. As per the petitioner, she has become a victim of the confusion caused by the official serving with respondent No.1, who is agent of the respondent. Pleading that the seat allotted to the petitioner has been wrongly cancelled, she has filed this writ petition to impugn the action of the University. The counsel would plead that the action to cancel the admission is bad and in support has relied on Clause 4.3.3 of the admission brochure. This provision, according to the petitioner regulates the cancellation of the allotment due to non-reporting of the candidate. The provision 4.3.3 is reproduced as follow:- “4.3.3 Cancellation of seat allotment due to non- CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 -4- reporting Candidate, who having a seat allotment (in round 1 or 2 or 3), do not report either to the Allotted Institute or to Admission Center after third round of allotment, will have to forego seats allotted to them and will not be considered for any subsequent round of seat allotment. Hence, they are out of CCB admission process.” Accordingly, counsel contends that the cancellation of her seat after allotment could have been done only after the third round and her non-appearance even if accepted, would not be a valid ground to cancel the seat, allotted to the petitioner. Notice of motion was issued. Reply is filed. As an interim measure, this Court had granted permission to the petitioner to appear for on-line counselling, which was statedly then in progress. Counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has participated in the on-line counselling and has been intimated that her documents are in order. Mr. A.S. Virk, counsel for the Board, very forthrightly submits that the seats are available. Still, the counsel contends that name of the petitioner for grant of admission can be considered only , if the Court would hold that cancellation was bad on any count. A preliminary objection is raised to say that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. The reference is made to the on-line CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 -5- counselling, which was conducted to grant admission. Reference is made to information brochure giving complete and comprehensive details in regard to the admission process. It is then stated that the candidates are required to read and learn about the detailed procedure required to be followed, as given in the admission brochure. In the reply it is disclosed that a complaint was made by the petitioner and thereupon an Inquiry Committee was constituted, which had inquired the complaint as made by the petitioner that she had reported to the admission centre and had submitted the documents to Mr. Devinder Gaur. Plea by the University is that this story is totally false and concocted. The facts as revealed during the enquiry, however, would belie the stand of the respondent. The Inquiry Committee found that on 9.7.2010 at the end of second round of CCB counselling, a file was found lying abandoned at Help Desk/Reception counter in Room No.L-3. The file contained photocopies of documents and demand drafts Hemakshi Meena(petitioner). From this it is concluded and is so stated that the candidate did not proceed beyond the Help Desk/Reception counter to other rooms and left the file in the room at Help Desk/Reception counter( in room L-3). It is so urged that the candidate (the petitioner) did not follow the remaining steps required for the purpose of taking admission. The cancellation of the allotment is, accordingly, justified. In the reply, mention in detail is made to the admission procedure. Noticing in brief, the petitioner after reporting CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 -6- to the admission centre was required to proceed further and was first required to get her documents verified and thereafter was to deposit demand drafts. It is, thereafter, that the candidate was issued a provisional letter for him/her to report to the allotted institution. The respondents have thus, justified their action in cancelling the allotment of seat to the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and also have minutely scanned the pleadings. From the reply, one thing would clearly emerge that the petitioner had indeed reported to the admission centre. Concededly, the petitioner had prepared the drafts for depositing requisite fee and had come to the institution with all her documents. The demand drafts were found in L-3 room. Thus, the version given by the petitioner appears to be a truthful account of events given by her and it certainly cannot be termed as false or a concoction. If the petitioner had not reported to the admission centre, the documents and the drafts could not have been found in the room. It cannot be explained as to why would a candidate prepare draft, come to the admission centre and then leave without getting admission. It would defy explanation. Not only that the petitioner has named a person, whom she met and with whom she had left the drafts and the documents. If the petitioner had not come to the centre, she would have been in no position to know the name of the person whom she statedly met. Devinder Gaur is the person so named and he is an employee with respondent No.1. It would thus be fair to believe that the petitioner had come to the admission center. It could be only for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 -7- the purpose of getting admission and for no other reason or purpose. There may be some mistake on the part of the petitioner hereafter. May be that she had left the documents with Devinder Gaur under some mistaken belief or on being misguided did not complete the process of submission of the documents and fees. The question thus would be to see if the petitioner is to be denied admission due to such innocent looking mistake. Allotment has been cancelled on the ground that she did not report to the admission centre. This is factually not found so. That being the factual position, the respondents can be expected to be considerate toward the life and career of the student. It is noticed that the University and other education institution have always been adopting rather harsh approach. Instead of raising technical objection, the approach should be to lend a helping hand to young students, who would have innocence writ large on their faces. A mistake, if can be corrected, should be so corrected rather than penalizing a student with harsh approach. It is conceded that the petitioner deserves to be allotted a seat on merits. The factual position as has come on record shows and is even admitted by the respondents that the petitioner had reported to the admission centre. The petitioner is being declined allotted seat simply on the ground that she failed to undergo complete process of admission. She was only to collect the provisional admission form. Certainly it will be rather harsh to the petitioner if she declined admission by adopting technical and pedantic approach. Seats are still available. The respondent must CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12722 of 2010 -8- rise above such technicalities and show a generous face of course it has to be legal as well. A case is made out to ignore these technical objections. I have persuaded myself to take this view as the seats are still available against which the petitioner can be admitted. There is also a doubt if the allotted seat could be cancelled before third counselling in term of the provision of 4.3.3 of the information brochure. A direction is therefore, issued to the respondents to consider and allot one seat to the petitioner in the stream she has applied as she has already participated in the counselling. The petitioner be admitted in a course as per her option according to her merit in accordance with law. The writ petition is allowed. August 31, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE