THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 831 · Decided: 11-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 11, 1996 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGARWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Altic/es 14 and 15. 
P1ivate Technical /nstitution:.-Seats rese1ved for wards of employees 
of such institutions and of company which founded such institution:.-Held C 
: violative of Art. 14-Although reserved seats were in addition to general seats 
and admission made Oil the basis of mm*s obtained in entrallce examination 
yet admission to rese1ved seats made by drawing separate list was unconstitu-
tiollal-Even if illstitution was deemed university, it could not make admis-
sion Oil basis of such reservatioll-Principles regarding preferential treatment D 
to Calldidates laid down. 
The appellant-Technological Institute of Textile and Science (T.I.T. 
& S) in Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995 was a registered Society and ran a 
technical institute which awarded B.Tech/M.Tech M.M.S. degrees. The 
appellant-Institute was affiliated to the respondent-University. The appel-
lant-Institute did not receive any financial aid either from the State 
Government of the Central Government or the respondent-University or 
E 
any other local authority. The appellant-Institute also owned and ran a 
textile mill wherein the students received practical training under the 
actual mill working conditions. The normal intake in the B.Tech. Course F 
of the T.I.T. & S. was 90 students each year and admission to these 90 
seats were made according to merit on the basis of a competitive entrance 
test conducted by the respondent-University. In addition to the aforesaid 
90 seats, the T.l.T. & S. has provided four additional seats for the wards 
of the employees of the appellant-Institute. By letter dated 15.7.1993, the G 
respondent-University conveyed its decision not to permit the T.I.T. & S. 
to continue with the reservation of seats for the wards of the staff of the 
T.I.T. & S. in the B.Tech Course and the T.I.T. & S. was directed not to 
make any admission under this category. Feeling aggrieved by the said 
order of the respondent-University the appellant-Institute filed a writ 
petition in the High Court which was dismissed. 
H 
831 
832 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant·Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology 
(TIET) and Thapar Polytechnic in Civil Appeal arising-out of SLPs Nos. 
10132 of 1995 and 10224 of 1995 were established and being run by the 
Patiala Technical Educational Trust. As per declaration of the Central 
Government dated 30.12.1985 under Section 3 of the University Grants 
B Commission Act, 1956, the T.I.E.T. was deemed to be a university for the 
purpose of the said Act. The T.I.E.T. imparted education at the Graduate 
and Post-Graduate level. In the T.I.E.T. there were 180 seats in various 
courses for award for degree in bachelor of Engineering, 2% seats were 
reserved for the children of employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala 
c 
Technical Education Trust and 5% seats were reserved for the children of 
employees of Thapar Group of Companies. The candidates for these seats 
were to be sponsored by the Patiala Technical Education Trust. The 
T.I.E.T. received maintenance grants for running expenses from the State 
Government. The Thapar Polytechnic conducted three year courses. Ad-
mission to these courses was made on the basis of merit to be determined 
D in Joint Competitive Entrance Test conducted by the State Government 
through State School Education Board. Provision was, however, made for 
reservation of 2% seats for wards of employees of the T.I.E.T. and the 
Thapar Polytechnic to be nominated by the Patiala Technical Education 
Trust. The nomination was made on the basis of relative merits of can· 
E dldates but the nominated candidates were not required to appear in the 
Common Entrance Test. The Poiytechnic received grant for running ex-
penses from the State Government. The State Government by its letter 
dated 16.9.1991 had decided that with effect from the academic session 
1991·92 onwards there shall be no reservation in admissions for wards of 
F employee of Department/Institutions. Writ petitions were filed in the High 
Court by the TIET' and the Patiala Technical Education Trust assailing 
the decision of the Government. The High Court dismissed the writ peti· 
tions. 
The petitions-TIET and the Patiala Technical Education Trust filed 
G Writ Petition No. 507 of 1995 befor

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.