LPA No. 155 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 155 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2011 Haryana Education Society, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani through Dr. Naveen, Member of the Haryana Education Society. ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K.Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J. This order contains the reasons for the conclusion recorded in our previous order dated 31.01.2011. The appellant-writ petitioner is a registered Society running and managing certain educational institutions in the State of Haryana which are engaged in conducting the B.Ed. Course. The essence of the relief prayed for in the writ petition, which has been declined by the learned Single Judge, is for a fresh process of counselling to admit students against the vacant available seats. According to the writ-petitioner-appellant, the academic session has LPA No. 155 of 2011 (O&M) [2] not yet started and the last counselling held on 20/21.12.2010 did not ensure the participation of sufficient number of students as the advertisement that had preceded the said counselling was published only in two newspapers which did not have a wide circulation in the State of Haryana. The learned Single Judge negatived the claim by holding that in between September, 2010 and December, 2010, as many as eight counsellings were held for admission, many of which were preceded by advertisements calling for applications from all the eligible candidates. The learned Single Judge also recorded the conclusion that of the candidates admitted i.e. 61055, almost 52% were from the State of Haryana whereas remaining 48% were from the other States. The learned Single Judge, therefore, took the view that notwithstanding the somewhat liberal approach that should be adopted in such matters, in the interest of the college having the vacant seats, finality must also be given to the admission process. Hence relief was declined giving rise to the present appeal. We have considered the reasons which have been assigned by the learned Single Judge to reach the conclusion as noticed above. Eight different counselling, preceded by advertisements, were held between the months of September and December, 2010. Inspite of the above, 1689 seats are lying vacant in all the colleges of the State offering the B.Ed. Course. The last counsellings held on 20/21.12.2010 were accepted by the association of Educational Colleges to be the last and final round of counselling. The said agreement was in the form of a document which was signed by the President of the Association. In the two counsellings that were LPA No. 155 of 2011 (O&M) [3] held in the month of December, 2010 including the counselling held on 20/21.12.2010, out of 4329 candidates, 3125 candidates belonged to the States other than Haryana and only 1204 candidates were from the State of Haryana. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the advertisement which had preceded the last counselling did not receive wide publicity to enable students from the other States to take part in the admission process. There can also be no manner of doubt that if vacant seats are available and the courses have not progressed too far, an attempt was to be made to fill up the vacant seats. In the present case, such attempts have repeatedly been made; yet 1689 seats could not be filled up. It is the admitted case of the appellant-writ petitioner that the session has already commenced and the course is presently going on after reopening of the colleges on 17.01.2011. In the totality of the facts of the case, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the admission process should reach a finality and should not be allowed to drag on, which itself may be detrimental to the interest of the course, can not be faulted by us while exercising jurisdiction in a intra Court appeal. We are, therefore, of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interference with the order of learned Single Judge will not be justified. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 02.02.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'