LexTHAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, PATIALA (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) versus ABHINAV TANEJA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, PATIALA (DEEMED UNIVERSITY) v. ABHINAV TANEJA AND ORS. APRIL 6, 1990 r B [K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226--High Court exercising ..... extraordinary jurisdiction-Not to exercise peremptorily, without giving " reasons. I( c Admission to professional institutions: B.E. Course-admissions --Writ Petitions by some candidates-High Court directing admission of-Petitioners less meritorious than others waiting-Whether justified. D For admission to B.E. Course (1989-90 Session) in the appellant- .,,,:· Institute and 3 other institutes, there was a Combined Entrance Test held by the Punjab University. The results were declared, and students allotted to the respective institutes of their choice. The appellant- Institute drew up merit list of candidates allotted to it and gave admis- sions in that order. E To fill tip the vacant seats as a result of some students leaving the Institute, the appellant-Institute held interviews on 14.8.1989, which - _,/ incidentally was the last date for admission to B.E. Course. However, the last date was extended up to 25.5.1989. When admission was closed on that day, the last student admitted was at S. No. 1127 in the merit list F prepared by the University. ~ Respondents I to 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court on 30.8.1989, alleging that six seats were vacant and the appellant- Institute be directed to admit them. The High Court on 21.9.1989 .)( ,. allowed the writ pettion on the assumption that six seats were vacant, G whereas only 2 seats were available, according to the appellant- Institute. Respondents 5 to 88 also approached the High Court by way of writ petitions and the High Court directed the appellant-Institute to admit the six Respondents also in the B.E. Course. Further, three other " T H similar writ petitions were pending before the High Court. 394 THAPAR INSTITUTE v. A. TANEJA .395 Against the above-said orders of the High Court, the appellant- Institute has preferred these appeals contending that the last candidate admitted was at S. No. 1127 in the merit list and admittedly all the Respondents except Respondent No. 6 were less meritorious, while candidates with higher merits were still waiting for admission. It was contended that while there were only 2 vacant seats, the High Court has directed the appellant-Institute to admit as many as ten candidates, that too long after the course started and the First Terminal Exams were over. Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: I.I The High Court not only ignored the fact which was specifically pointed out in the appellant-Institute's affidavit that there were no seats available in the appellant-Institute whose capacity was only I80 seats, but also the fact that there were more meritorious students than the Respondents as per the Combined Entrance Test, who could not secure admission and who were waiting to be admitted to the appellant-Institute. The Respondent-students could get admission to the appellant-Institute only if their comparative merits ordained it and not otherwise. They could claim no merit over other meritorius students merely beeause they had approached the Court for securing admission. In fact, in their writ petitions before the High Court, the respondent- students had claimed no further relief than that they should be directed to be admitted according to their merit. [399B-E] 1.2 There was nothing wrong in the appellant-Institute admitting IO more students in B.E. Course. The Institute has a capacity of only I80 students. To meet the contingency of the students leaving it soon after admission the appellant-Institute had admitted IO more students as has been done every year. As it turned o':'t, I2 of the students left leaving 178 students on the roll, with only 2 vacancies. The High Court could have directed only two students to be admitted and that too on merit. Admittedly, there were more meritorious students than the respondents, waiting in queue. The High Court thus travelled beyond its jurisdiction and not only directed more students than the Institute could absorb but also students who were less meritorious to be admit- ted. No reasons whatsoever have been given by the High Court for exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction so peremptorily which has resulted in injustice both to the appellant-Instit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.