IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.20804 of 2008 (O & M) Date of Decision: February 12, 2009 Mandeep Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Principal, Mata Maysarkgaba Girls College of Education, Maysarkhana, District Bathinda & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. P.P.S. Tung, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Saini, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) C.M. No.2515 of 2009 Application has been filed seeking permission to place on record enquiry report prepared by the Committee constituted by Punjabi University, Patiala as per directions issued by this Court on 8.1.2009. Application is allowed. Enquiry report is taken on record as Annexure R-2/1. CWP No.20804 of 2008 This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of CWP No.20804 of 2008 [2] the Constitution of India prays for issuance a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in B.Ed Course being eligible and higher in merit. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1- College states that one seat has fallen vacant on account of withdrawal of one of the students from the Course namely Smt. Minakshi on 18.12.2008. It has further been brought out that the petitioner indeed is eligible and falls in merit, and therefore, is entitled to the seat. Learned counsel for the respondent-College states that the College is ready to grant admission to the petitioner. As per enquiry report (Annexure R-2/1) taken on record today, it has been concluded that the petitioner has the right to claim admission because her merit is higher than many candidates admitted by the College (respondent No.1). The petitioner has been wrongly deprived of her right to get admission. Seat in the College is vacant. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. It is directed that the petitioner would be allowed admission against the vacant seat. A number of facts have come out in the enquiry report which call for action against the College. It is made clear that respondent No.2-University, shall be at liberty to take action against the College (respondent No.1) in accordance with law, however, after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent-College. (AJAI LAMBA) February 12, 2009 JUDGE avin