CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9570 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 30, 2010 Manpreet Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Vice Chancellor, Panjab University 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. P. S. Garewal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Shergill, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos.9570 of 2010 (Manpreet Singh Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Panjab University and others) and 11404 of 2010 (Rajinder Singh Vs. The Vice Chancellor, Panjab University and others) as common question of law is involved in both the writ petitions. FACTS IN C.W.P. NO.9570 OF 2010 Manpreet Singh, petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.9570 of 2010, has prayed for a direction to consider his case for admission in M.B.A Course in respondent-University in the reserved category of son/daughter etc. of person displaced/effected due to November 1984 riots. As per the averments made in the petition, Avtar Singh, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9570 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: father of the petitioner and his entire family, was uprooted/displaced due to 1984 riots and their house was set on fire by rioters/attackers. On this basis, it is claimed that the petitioner's family became incapacitated from their work/business of bricks and sand gravels. It is stated that the family of the petitioner was issued a red card by Deputy Commissioner, Patiala, as being uprooted/displaced due to 1984 riots. The claim for admission in the reserved category of riot affected is, thus, made in the petition. The petitioner has passed the matriculation examination in the year 2005 and +2 examination in 2007, securing 70% marks. The petitioner has graduated in the year 2009-10 and has qualified in the Common Admission Test for admission to M.B.A. Course in the University Business School, Panjab University. The petitioner has applied for admission in the reserved category of son of the person affected/displaced in November 1984 riots. The petitioner, however, has been declared ineligible. As per the petitioner, this has been done to accommodate the candidate of choice by respondent- University. The father of the petitioner submitted various representations but to no avail. He has, thus, filed this petition for issuance of a direction to consider his case for admission in the reserved category of riots affected candidate. FACTS IN C.W.P. NO.11404 OF 2010 Rajinder Singh, is the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.11404 of 2010. He has also sought direction for admission in B.E/B.Tech. Course in the reserve category of son/daughter of riot affected person. This petitioner also claims that his father, Satnam Singh, and his entire family was uprooted during November 1984 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9570 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: riots. The family was forced to leave their house and it is, thus, pleaded that they were incapacitated from their work and business, which they were carrying in the name and style of `Singh Electronics'. The family of the petitioner has been issued a red card by Deputy Commissioner, Patiala. The petitioner has passed his matriculation in 2008 and +2 in the year 2010, securing 90.8% marks. The petitioner has qualified in All India Engineering/Architecture Entrance Examination, 2010 and has secured overall rank No.699. He accordingly applied for admission to B.E/B.Tech. Course of Panjab University in the reserved category of son of riot affected/displaced/incapacitated person. The petitioner has also been declared ineligible and so has filed this writ petition. DISSCUSSION-COMMON IN BOTH WRITS The relevant provision of the prospectus, regulating the admission in both the cases have been reproduced in the respective writ petitions. Admission to all reserved category is stated to be subject to fulfillment of eligibility conditions and in accordance with the provisions of the admission process contained in the hand book of information. Two percents seats have been reserved for sons/daughters/husband/wife/brothers/sisters of persons killed/ incapacitated in November 1984 riots. The relevant provision reproduced in the writ petitions, which is common in both writs, is under:- “(vi) 2% for sons/ daughters/ husband/ wife/ brothers/ sisters/ of persons killed/incapacitated in November 1984 riots and of persons killed/incapacitated in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9570 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: terrorist violence in Punjab and Chandigarh.” A certificate from the District Magistrate is required to be submitted by the candidate and migrant card alone is not enough. The petitioners in both the petitions have made claim on the common grounds that they are to be treated as sons of the riot affected family on the ground that the families were uprooted and displaced in November 1984 riots. The reservation is claimed on the ground that their houses were set on fire and, thus, the family was deprived of their livelihood and, thus, they would be covered by the clause being those who were incapacitated. As per the counsel, the word `incapacitated' can not mean only to make someone unable to work or to do things normally but would also include within its meaning `the one who is incapacitated in his means of livelihood and earnings'. In this regard, the counsel has heavily relied upon the dictionary meaning of the word `incapacitated' to substantiate his submission. Counsel contends that the dictionary meaning relied upon by the petitioner carries two cognitive variants. Incapacitation of some limb or organ etc. of body and also `incapacitation' from some job or work or source of livelihood. He accordingly has urged that when the entire families of the petitioners were uprooted due to 1984 riots, they were incapacitated from doing their job/work/business as a direct result of 1984 riots and, thus, the petitioners would be the sons of persons, who were `incapacitated' and so entitled to be considered in the reserved category of son of the person incapacitated due to November 1984 riots. The submission on these lines has seriously been refuted CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9570 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: by the respondents in their reply, who have also justified their action in considering the petitioners ineligible. There is an apparent fallacy in the line of reasoning advanced by counsel for the petitioners. The relevant provisions of the prospectus making reservation for riot affected persons has been reproduced above. The reservation clearly is being made for sons/daughters etc. of those persons who were killed/incapacitated in November 1984 riots. When word `incapacitated' is used with stroke of `oblique' to the word `killed', it is required to be assigned a meaning accordingly in that capacity. There is no indication that word `incapacitated' as used was meant to include in its meaning the financial incapacitation due to loss of business etc. The word is used in conjunction with the word `killed' and so obviously was meant to mean incapacitation on account of some limb, organ or body. There is no reason or purpose to assign any other meaning to word `incapacitated' when it is being used in conjunction with word `killed'. If the word incapacitation was to be used in any other sense, it would not have been used as oblique to word `killed' and was bound to be used in more clarificatory manner, leaving no scope of doubt. It is just a fertile imagination by the counsel that the word is being given this colour and there is no reason to read it in the manner as suggested. There is yet another fallacy in the line of reasoning advanced by the counsel for the petitioners. Even if it is taken that the families of the petitioners had to leave their source of livelihood, still it can not be taken to mean that there was any incapacitation on their part to carry on their work/job or business or to engage in source of livelihood even after having been dislodged from their CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9570 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: earlier place of abode or work. Such families may have lost the capacity to work on earlier job but were not incapacitated in any manner to work or otherwise. There was no incapacitation for work on the part of said families or to do any job or to engage in earning their livelihood otherwise. The families where a person was killed or had lost a limb etc. would certainly were render incapacitated for all purposes. Such a person would be incapacitated not only physically but would also be incapacitated in their earning capacity etc. Thus, the word incapacitated as used in the provisions can not by any stretch of imagination mean financial incapacitation to carry out their work etc. and has to be given a meaning in the sense of physical incapacitation due to loss of limb, organ or part of body etc. No other meaning can either be assigned or reasonably can be so assigned to the word as used in the provisions of the prospectus. Since the petitioners are not such persons, who are sons of those who were killed or physically incapacitated in 1984 riots, they are not eligible for grant of admission in the reserved category of riot affected persons. The incapacity used clearly is physical incapacity. If there had been any intention to use the word incapacity in any other sense, the same was bound to be clarified. There is, thus, no merit in both the writ petitions, where this common question of law and fact is under consideration. Both the writ petitioners are, therefore, dismissed. August 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE