CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 07, 2010 Association of Punjab Self Finance College of Education, Mohali and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Monika Chhibber, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This petition is filed by Association of Punjab Self Financed College of Education for issuing direction, especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents either to conduct Common Entrance Test for admission to Elementary Teachers Training Course (for short, “ETT Course”) for Session 2009-2011 or alternatively to permit the petitioners to conduct the Common Entrance Test for admission to the said course for the said Sessions. The case set up by the petitioner-Association is that the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: State has arbitrarily taken upon itself the power to regulate admission to the Private Self Financed Colleges of Education for ETT Courses. As per the petitioners, this will be in violation of the law laid down in Islamic Academy of Education and another Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 697 and P.A.Inamdar & others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 537. This is the second round of litigation as the Association had earlier approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 19194 of 2007. The said writ petition was disposed of in totality by issuing following directions:- “1. The State is directed to hold Common Entrance Test as per its policy before the commencement of every academic year for admission to ETT/B.Ed. Courses in the petitioner-Institution and such other Institutions as have already been established, recognized and affiliated with the appropriate University. 2. Based upon the test so conducted, the students will be admitted in each institution in accordance with the laid down norms and to the extent of intake capacity prescribed. If there are no norms by equitable distribution subject to intake capacity. 3. In the event the State is unable to conduct such Common Entrance Test for any academic year, it shall permit the petitioner-institutions or authorize any other authority or body to hold such a Common Entrance Test or by constituting a Committee of the representatives of the institution(s) under the over-all CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: control of the Director of Education of the State. In such an eventuality, the institutions shall invite applications for Common Entrance Test and adopt a fair and transparent procedure/method for admission to various courses being pursued by the institutions. The allocation of students will be on equitable basis, though preference shall be given to the students to opt for a particular institution based upon their assessment of the infrastructure and other facilities, including the proximity to their residence etc. However, such preference will be subject to intake capacity of each institution. 4. It would be appreciated if the State Government itself holds such a Common Entrance Test every year. The State Government will also constitute a Committee of experts to conduct survey regarding future requirement of such institutions and while conducting such survey, at least 1/4th of the Members of the Committee shall be the representative of the existing Institutions. On completion of such survey, the State Government will take a policy decision whether to permit any more institutions to come up in the State of Punjab in general or with reference to any backward or rural area in particular. Till such survey is conducted, it shall not permit any new institution to be established in the State. 5. No order as to costs.” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: One of the direction, as noted above, was to the effect that when the State would be unable to conduct the entrance test, it shall permit the petitioner-Institution or authorise any other authority or body to hold such Common Entrance Test. Since the respondent- State had not taken any action to hold the entrance test, this petition was filed for directing the State either to hold the entrance test or alternatively permit the petitioner-Association to conduct the entrance test for admission to ETT course. Notice of motion in this case was issued in February 2010. The petitioner as well as State were required to file certain affidavits during the course of proceedings. Ultimately, the State counsel was directed to have instructions, whether the State was willing to hold Common Entrance Test or not. When the case was taken up for hearing on 2.7.2010, an affidavit was filed averring that the respondent-State was intending to hold entrance test on or before 31.10.2010 for Session 2010-2012. At that stage, Senior counsel representing the petitioner-Association made reference to a judgement passed by this Court, wherein it was viewed that the Institutions, which were not receiving any aid from the Government, were entitled to hold their entrance test independently. The case was adjourned to enable the counsel to place the copy of order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.10091 of 2009 (Self Financed B.Ed. Colleges Association, Pb. And another Vs. State of Punjab and another), decided on 1.7.2010, on record. A ratio of law that would emerge from this judgment is that State does not have any authority to conduct entrance examination in respect of unaided Self Financed (Minority and non-Minority) Institutions. The relevant observations are CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: as under:- “In view of the ratio of the judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and P.A. Inamdar cases (supra), I am of the considered view that the State does not have the authority to conduct entrance examination test in respect to unaided self financed (minority and non-minority Institutions). It has to be left to such institutions to hold such common entrance test either at State level or even jointly with the other States. What is to be ensured is that admissions procedure is merit based, transparent and non-exploitative and in consonance with the minimum standards prescribed under the regulations framed by the NCTE or any other such rule or regulation that may be framed by the affiliating University only to the extent of ensuring merit-based admissions. When this petition came to be filed, the admissions for the academic Session 2009-10 were to take place.” Since this view has been so expressed by the Court, the prayer made in the present petition apparently would be rendered infructuous as the Self Financed Institutions have been permitted to hold their own test, for which the Government apparently now would not have any control in view of law laid down in Self Financed B.Ed. Colleges Association's case (supra). To be fair to the learned State counsel, she vehemently opposed the prayer in this case primarily on the ground that the Government would be holding the test for Session 2010-2012. As per counsel for the petitioner-Institution, the issue involved in the present CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2196 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: writ petition relates to the Session 2009-2011. The counsel would also submit that apprehension expressed by the State counsel that this may lead to disturbing the admission of PGS volunteers, who have been admitted by some of the Colleges of the Association, is not correct as no such admission would be disturbed and statement to this effect had already been made by the counsel for the petitioner-Association, as is recorded in the order dated 26.3.2010. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Self Financed B.Ed. Colleges Association (Supra), no further direction need to be made in regard to the right of the petitioner- Association to hold entrance examination and to regulate the admissions on that basis. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. July 07, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE