IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 4936 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th December, 2011. Sahil Chopra Petitioner through Mr. P.S.Khurana, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms.Sudeepti Sharma,DAG, Punjab. Mr. J.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] The petitioner appeared in the Common Entrance Test-2009 conducted by the Punjab Technical University for admission to Engineering Course in the State of Punjab. The petitioner, on the basis of his merit, was admitted to Shaheed Bhagat Singh College of Engineering & Technology in the discipline of Computer Sciences. The petitioner, it appears belongs to Economically Weaker Section ['EWS'] of the society and relied upon the Pension Payment Order of his father who is a retiree. He applied for the benefit under the 'Fee Waiver Scheme' issued by the State of Punjab to help the students belonging to EWS of the society. The petitioner was asked to bring a certificate from the Tehsildar that he belongs to the afore- stated section of the society, which was also produced by him. The controversy, however, took a new turn. While the petitioner claimed that he had applied under the afore-stated scheme to get the fee-waiver and appeared before the Fee-Waiver Committee, the said Committee denied that he appeared before it. This Court vide order dated 08.09.2011 directed the Director, Technical Education, Punjab to conduct a fact finding inquiry and submit a report. Pursuant thereto, the Commissioner, Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab has submitted his report concluding that “the petitioner had neither applied against seat in fee waiver scheme, nor appeared before the Admission Committee”. CWP No. 4936 of 2010. ::-2-:: I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. In my considered view, the approach of the respondents in not redressing the petitioner's grievance is wholly misdirected. The respondents have in their short reply no where disputed the fact that the petitioner belongs to 'EWS' of the society. In any case, that question can be effectively gone into by the respondents through their administrative mechanism. The real question that arises for consideration is as to whether a student who belongs to EWS, should be deprived of the welfare policy which emanates from the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV of the Constitution? The hyper-technicalities, like non-appearance of a candidate before the Fee Waiter Committee, though appears to be attractive, however, should not be taken as a tool to deny the benefit of such like policies. Heaven would not have fallen if the petitioner had been asked to submit another application and/or to appear before the said Committee for verification of his claim. The plea that only 10% of the students are to be provided the benefit of the said scheme, appears to be totally unjustified. If there are more than 10% students belonging to EWS and have been admitted to different Engineering Colleges, there appears to be no rhyme or reason in not granting the said benefit in order of merit. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner, if so advised, may submit a fresh application to the Fee-Waiter Committee along with requisite documents to prove that he belongs to EWS of the society. If such an application is moved, the same shall be considered by the afore-stated Committee irrespective of the limitation of 10% quota imposed or already exhausted in terms of the said policy and in case the petitioner is found entitled to, he shall also be granted the said benefit. In the event of grant of fee-waiver benefit to the petitioner, the respondent College shall be reimbursed by the State Government. Let the needful be done within one month from the date a certified copy of this order along with application of the petitioner is received. Disposed of. Dasti. December 14, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE