CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus MANPREET SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 322 · Decided: 18-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
B 
v. 
MANPREET SINGH AND-ORS. ETC. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 18,199-1 
[P~B. SAWANT AND B.P. J~EVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Punjab Engineering Col/ege-Admissions--Union Territory of 
Chandigarh Memo dated J9.5.198216.9.199o-Reservation of seats for 
children/spouses of military/para-military personnel~ollege prospectus 
dividing them in 5 sub-categories--A.dmissions to be given in order of 
C priority in ·descending order-High Court's direction to switch the cat-
egories affecting the order of priori~gality of 
Constitution of India· 1950: 
Art. 226-High Court's jurisdiction--Whether supervisory in na-
D 
ture- objectives of writ jurisdiction explained-High Court not to sit/act 
as an appellate authority over the role making authorities. 
E 
Practice and Procedure: 
College admissions-Whether High Court should stay for 3-4 weekS' 
implementation of its order admitting a student, if so prajted. 
The Union Territory of Chandigarh, by its Memo dated 19.5.1982 
as modifited by another Memo dated 6.9.1990, reserved 5% of seats 
for children/spouses of military/para-military personnel. Pursuant 
thereto the Punjab Engineering College, reserved 15 seats for such 
candidates. For the purpose of admission the college categorised in 
F its prospectus these candidates into 5 sub-categories. These belong-
hig to the respective categories and obtaining qualifying marks in 
the entrance examination were to be admitted meritwise in the or-
cter of priority in descending order: sub-category 1 consisted of 
children/spouses of defence personnel who were awardees of'gal-
lantry decorations of Paramvir/Mahavir/Vir Chakra in person or 
G posthumously, or, dependent children/sp9uses of defence/para mili-
tary personnel who were killed or totally incapacitated in action 
while in service. Dependent childern/spouses of defence/para mili-
- tary personnel who died in service were put in sub-category 2. Sub-
category 3 comprised the dependent children/spouses of defenceJ,Para 
military personnel incapacitated while in service, Dependent chtl-
H 
dren/spouses of Ell-servicemen (military and para military) were 
322 
.,__ 
t 
,. 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. MANPREET SINGH 
323 
. plac~d in sub-category 4; and those of serving defence/para military A 
personnel found place in sub-category 5. 
For the academic year 1991-92 out of the 15 seats, 9 seats went 
to all the 9 qualified candidates belonging to sub-categories 1 to 3, 
and remaining seats were allotted to 6 candidates meritwise out of 
90 qualified candidates belonging to sub-category 4. Sub-category 5 B 
went unprovided. 
Respondent no.1 in SLP No.16066/91, who appeared in the en-
trance examination for the academic year 1991-92 but did not get 
admission, filed a writ petition before the High Court contending 
· that his father was an awardee of 'Sbaurya Cbakra' which was 
equivalent to Vir Cbakra and therefore bis case ought to have been 
considered in sub-category 1. On behalf of the College it was stated 
that 'Sbauria-Cbakra' award was not covered under the rules an_d 
regulations and, therefore, respondent no.1, being the son of an Ex-
ser(riceman, could be considered only in sub-category 4. 
Respondents no.1 and 2 in SLP No.16065/91, the sons of the 
serving defence personnel, filed another writ p~tition before the 
High Court challenging the categorization of defence personnel as 
unreasonable and contended that children of serving defence per-
sonnel should have been preferred over the children of Ex-service-
c 
D 
man. 
E 
The High Court allowed both the writ petitions and directed 
the College to admit all the three petitioners. It ordered that sub-
category 5 should be treated as sub-category 4 and sub-categery 4 
should be treated as sub-category 5, and the admissions should be 
made accordingly. · 
F 
The petitioner in SLP No.16451/91, being the son of an Ex-
serviceman, was initially entitled to be considered under sub-cat-
egory 4 which by the order of the High Court was converted into 
sub-category 5. He challenged the-,said conversion of categories by . 
yet another wi:it petition which was dismissed by the High Court. 
G 
The Chandigarh Administration and the College filed SLPs 
No.16066 and 16065 of 1991 against the orders of the High Court 
allowing the two writ petitions, whereas SLP No. 16451 of 1991 was 
filed by the petitioaer in the third writ petition wllkll was dismiued 
by the High. Court. 
H 
324 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.