IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18328 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision : November 21, 2011. Jasmine Gambhir .....Petitioner versus National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Kohal Dev, Advocate for Mr.Jatin Salwan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner appeared in All India Engineering Entrance Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'AIEEE”)-2009 and based upon her overall merit, she was allotted a seat at National Institute of Technology (for short 'NIT'), Calicut in the second counseling. The petitioner did not opt for NIT, Calicut and waited for third counseling wherein she was allotted a seat in IT stream at NIT, Kurukshetra. The petitioner got admission provisionally in NIT, Kurukshetra and also appeared in the first semester examination started on 23.11.2009. Meanwhile, the impugned order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) was passed whereby her name was removed alongwith five more students from the NIT, Kurukshetra. The CWP No.18328 of 2009(O&M) [2] impugned order though did not assign any reason but in their respective reply-affidavits, the respondents have explained that as per the higher choices preferred by the petitioner while applying for AIEEE-2009, she was 'upgraded' for admission in IT Stream at NIT, Surathkal, Karnataka and as a result thereto, she has to forego her claim for the previously allotted seat at NIT, Kurukshetra. The petitioner did not want to go to NIT Surathkal, Karnataka and wanted to pursue her studies at NIT, Kurukshetra, hence has approached this Court against cancellation of her admission in NIT, Kurukshetra. The petitioner was granted interim protection by a Co- ordinate Bench vide order dated 9.2.2010. I have gone through the reply-affidavits filed by the respondents. In my considered view, the 'option' exercised by a candidate and/or his/her higher merit cannot work to his/her dis-advantage nor can it deprive such a candidate for admission to an institute of his/her choice where a candidate with lower merit is being admitted. The petitioner, if by her own choice, wants to continue at NIT, Kurukshetra, she cannot be compelled to shift to NIT, Surathkal, Karnataka merely on the perceived notion that the said Institute is graded higher than NIT, Kurukshetra. While this Court does not intend to directly or indirectly interfere with the Academic Policy of Central Counselling Board or the respondent- Institutes. Suffice it to observe that the respondents need to evolve an effective mechanism to ensure that the students are not shifted from one institute to another and that too at a far away place after they have admitted CWP No.18328 of 2009(O&M) [3] and allowed to attend classes or have appeared in the examination also except where a candidate higher in merit asserts such a claim. For the reasons afore-stated and without interfering with the policy, however, having regard to the fact that the admission of the petitioner was upset at a belated stage, this writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 25.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) is quashed and it is directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue her study in NIT, Kurukshetra. All the consequences regarding appearance in the examinations and declaration of result etc. shall follow. Dasti. November 21, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE