CWP No.11053 of 2009 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 18.8.2009 Kavita Bajaj Vs. Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana and others. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.HS Baath, Advocate,for the petitioner. Mr. HNS Gill, Advocate,for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner applied for the post of B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) four years duration for which the prospectus was issued by respondent No.1-University. The prospectus also notified the dates for submission of application forms, the date of entrance test as also the counselling for the candidates who appeared in the Common Entrance Test. It has been specifically notified that after the Common Entrance Test to be conducted by respondent No.2, counselling/interview will be held on 29.06.2009 and 30.06.2009 for which the time notified was 9.00 a.m at Pal Auditorium of the University. The petitioner appeared in the Entrance Test conducted by the University under Roll No.2339 and admit card was issued to her. Copy of the Admit Card has been attached with the petition as Annexure P-2. On the information available on the website of the University, the petitioner has cleared the test and secured 159 rank in general category. It is stated that on the basis of the dates notified in the prospectus for counselling, the petitioner appeared on 30.06.2009 for counselling in the University at the place and time specified therein and came to know that all the interviews for the first counselling have concluded on 29.06.2009. It is further the CWP No.11053 of 2009 : 2 : case of the petitioner that on 30.06.2009, no counselling was held and the petitioner was informed that no counseling will take place on 30.6.2009. The petitioner along with some other candidates had filed a representation before the Vice Chancellor of the University on the same day i.e. 30.06.2009, but to no avail. Aggrieved of the acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent-University, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction of her counselling and consequently, admission in B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) course. The respondents were put to notice. Reply has been filed by them. It is admitted that the counselling was notified for 29.06.2009 and 30.6.2009. Respondents have, however, attempted to explain that as a matter of fact, counseling was for 29.06.2009 and in case, large number of candidates appeared for counselling, then counselling would be continued for the next day i.e 30.6.2009. This averment made in the reply is totally contrary to the prospectus. In Column No.1 of the Schedule for Entrance Test/Counselling/Interviews, two days for counselling have been notified i.e. 29.6.2009 and 30.6.2009. It is no where provided in the prospectus that the counselling will take place only on 29.6.2009 and will spill over to 30.6.2009 in case, all the candidates could not be interviewed on 29.6.2009. From the prospectus, it appears that two dates were notified for counselling. Thus, it was open to the candidates to appear for counselling on any of the two dates mentioned above. Apart from the aforesaid stand taken by the respondents, a copy of the letter dated 1.7.2009 has been attached as Annexure R-1, with the reply. This letter is addressed to the Dean, Colleges of Agriculture, CWP No.11053 of 2009 : 3 : P.A.U., Ludhiana, wherein it is communicated that the candidates mentioned therein +/ appeared for counselling on 30.6.2009. Based upon the aforesaid letter, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that second counselling is scheduled to be held on 31.08.2009 for the candidates, who have marked their presence on 29.6.2009. In this manner, the right of the petitioner to participate in the counselling has been acknowledged. However, the respondents have ordered counselling of the petitioner later than those candidates who have been admitted and some of them who have lessor merit than the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner and similarly placed candidates have been deprived of their right of counselling on 30.06.2009 because of the stipulation of the Prospectus. Even when two dates were notified in the Prospectus for the counselling, the respondents have in gross contravention of the stipulation contained in the Prospectus, conducted the counselling on one day only. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be denied the right of her consideration for allotment of the discipline of her choice on the basis of her merit achieved in the Entrance Test. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the second counselling for admission in the B.Sc. Agriculture (Hons.) four years, on the basis of merit achieved in the Entrance Test and the counselling, accordingly. 18.08.2009 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO CWP No.11053 of 2009 : 4 :