CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13619 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 04, 2010 Gurjinder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Vice Chancellor, Panjab University, Chandigarh and others ....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. C. L. Premy, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was a claimant for a seat in the LL.B course with respondent-University has filed this writ petition for quashing letter, Annexure P-5, whereby Joint Admission Committee had rejected the objection raised by the petitioner qua the admission of respondent No.4 in the category of backward class. The petitioner belongs to backward class category, but could not apply for admission in this reserved category as initially no reservation was made for backward class candidates in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13619 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: prospectus issued by the Panjab University. On 29.6.2010, Syndicate took a decision to reserve 5% seats for backward class in the University and the Regional Centres. A corrigendum was issued for permitting the candidates to submit their forms under backward class category upto 12.7.2010. The candidates, who had originally submitted their application forms, but had not mentioned their category, could also contact the Department for incorporating the change upto 12.7.2010. The petitioner accordingly submitted his application well in time. The counselling was held on 22.7.2010 and respondent No.4 was allotted seat at Regional Centre, Hoshiarpur, in the category of general class candidate. Respondent No.4 again appeared for counselling on 23.7.2010 in the category of backward class candidate without producing any certificate. It is stated that he simply submitted an affidavit alongwith the certificate of his father, showing him to be a backward class. The petitioner objected to this manner being adopted by Joint Admission Committee. Still, respondent No.4 was held eligible, though he had not applied in the said category within the stipulated time nor had produced any certificate. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on 23.7.2010 against this. This representation was rejected on 30.7.2010. Though the petitioner could have been admitted in the reserved category of backward class, but his chance is taken away by the petitioner to get admission in the University Campus. The petitioner, however, has been admitted in LL.B Course but not in the University Campus. Separate replies have been filed on behalf of University CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13619 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: as well as respondent No.4. Explaining the reason for considering respondent No.4 eligible in backward class category, it is stated that the backward class certificates were accepted after July 12, 2010 and even after the date of counselling, not only in the case of respondent No.4 but for several other candidates as well. In all, 9 candidates were admitted in B.A. LL.B Five years integrated course and out of these only one had submitted his backward class certificate on 12.7.2010. Two candidates submitted such certificates on 21.7.2010 and one candidate submitted this certificate on 22.7.2010 while the remaining five candidates submitted their certificates on 23.7.2010. So far as case of respondent No.4 is concerned, it is pointed out that his father had submitted his certificate showing himself to be a backward class. The University sought an opinion from legal expert nominated for the purpose. The father of respondent No.4 was thereafter asked to submit a certificate that respondent No.4 was his son. Accordingly, he was considered for admission in the backward class category candidate. Later on, he produced a certificate in this regard as well. This approach on the part of the University is sought to be justified on the ground that initially, no reservation was made for backward class category candidates. As per the counsel of the University, a liberal approach was adopted to consider the case of such candidates and the admission was granted purely on the basis of merit. A case for diluting the requirement of submission of all relevant and proper documents apparently is made out having regard to these peculiar facts. None of the candidates could have made an CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13619 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: application in this reserved category as the reservation was made subsequent to the issuance of prospectus. Though the corrigendum was issued and the date for submission of the application/certificate was also provided but still the approach on the part of the University to consider the cases of backward class category candidates upto the date of counselling appears just and reasonable. Such an approach normally may not be permissible, if initially reservation had been made for said category. It is this special facet of the case that will require special consideration. The objections filed by the petitioner were duly considered and rejected by adopting a fair and reasonable approach. The petitioner has also been granted admission, though not in the University Campus. Thus, the fight is not for getting the seat but a seat at place of choice for study. In view of these peculiar facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. October 04, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE