Holding

A High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot act as an appellate or rule‑making authority and may not alter the priority categories in a reservation rule without striking down the rule; such directions are beyond its jurisdiction.

Summary

The Union Territory of Chandigarh reserved 5% of seats in Punjab Engineering College for children and spouses of military/para‑military personnel, dividing them into five sub‑categories with a descending order of priority. Several applicants challenged the categorisation, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re‑ordering the categories and by treating the Shaurya Chakra as equivalent to the Vir Chakra. The High Court directed that category 4 be treated as category 5 and vice‑versa, and ordered admissions accordingly. The Supreme Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, a High Court has a supervisory, not appellate, role and cannot rewrite or ‘switch’ categories in a rule without striking down the rule; it may only direct the rule‑making authority to amend the rule. Although the Court found the High Court’s orders legally untenable, it declined to set them aside because the affected students had already been admitted and would suffer irreparable prejudice. Consequently, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed and the High Court’s orders were left undisturbed.

Issues considered

The scope of a High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 with respect to supervisory versus appellate functions.
Whether a High Court can alter or ‘switch’ categories in a reservation rule without striking down the rule.
Whether the Shaurya Chakra award should be treated as equivalent to the Vir Chakra for admission purposes.
Whether the Supreme Court should set aside the High Court's orders given the subsequent admissions and potential prejudice.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 226
Defence Services Regulationss. Regulation 695, s. Regulation 717

Subjects

ReservationEducational admissionArticle 226Writ jurisdictionSupervisory jurisdictionRule‑making authoritySpecial Leave PetitionPunjab Engineering CollegeMilitary personnelDiscrimination

Judgment

A CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
v.
MANPREET SINGH AND-ORS. ETC. ETC.

NOVEMBER 18,199-1

B [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 ofpriori~gality of
Constitution ofIndia· 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.
Practice and Procedure:
.,__
College admissions-Whether High Court should stay for 3-4 weekS' t

implementation ofits order admitting a student, if so prajted.
E ,.
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
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 c
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.
D
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-
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) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A It was contended on behalf of Chandigarh Administration and
the College that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting •
the impugned order in as much as in writ jurisdiction the High
Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the rule making
body nor can it re-write the rules.

B On 15.11.1991 the three Special Leave Petitions were disposed
of.

Giving reasons in support of its order dated 15.11.1991 this
Court,

c HELD: 1. While acting under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the High Court does not sit and/or act as an appellate authority
-over the orders/actions of the subordinate authorities/tribunals. Its
jurisdiction is supervisory in nature. [pp. 335 H; 336 A]

One of the main objectives of this jurisdiction is to keep the
D g9v.ernment and several other authorities and tribunals within the
bounds of their respective jurisdiction. The High Court must ensure
that while· performing this function it does not overstep the well-
recognised bounds of its own jurisdiction. [p. 336 A]

2.1 In the instant case, the High Court should not have in-
E dulged in the exercise of 'switching' the categories and that too
without giving any reasons therefor. Thereby, it has practicably
assumed the role of rule-making authority, or, at any rate, assumed
the role of an appellate authority. That is .clearly not the function of
the High Court acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of In-
dia. [p. 334 G-H)
F
2.2 If tfle High Court was satisfied that the rule was .dis.crimi-
natory and bad, the only course open to it was to strike down the
offending rule. It could also have directed the authorities to reframe
the rule and make admissions accordingly. [p. 333 F]

G By directing that category 4 should be treated as category 5
and conversely category 5 should be treated as category 4, the High
Court has prejudicially affected t~e rights of candidates falling un-
der category 4 without even h'earing them, particularly when these
categories were ~entioned in the order of priority. (p. 335 A]

H 3. A rule making authority need not observe the rule of hear-
'

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. MANPREET SINGH ·325

ing, but the High Court exercising its judicial power cannot dis- A
pense with the requirement. [p. 335 AB]

4. Although the orders and directions made by the High Court
were totally unsupportable in law, yet, in view of the subsequent
developments, the Special Leave Petitions could not be allowed. By
the time the SLPs were taken up and stay granted, the respondents B
were already admitted in the College and they gave up their seats
which they had obtained in other colleges. Depriving them of their
admission in the College at such a late stage would result in grave
and irreparable prejudice to them. The Administration and the Col-
lege authorities ought to have acted with more alacrity and ap-
proached this court earlier than they did. (p. 336 B-D] C

S. In matters where the High Court directs the students to be _
admitted in educational institutions it would be advisable if the High
Court stays the operation of its order for a period of about 3 to 4
weeks if a request therefor is made by the educational institution or
the State as the case may be. [pp. 336 GH; 337 A] D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition Nos.
16066, 16065 & 16451of1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.1991, 30.8.1991 & 9.10.1991
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W .P.Nos. 12644, 12485 and E
14606 of 1991 respectively.

Kapil Sibal, Ranjit Kumar, J.D. Jain, Mrs. Kawaljit Kocher, Dr.
Bairam Gupta, Ms. Yasmin Tarapore, J. Lal Kailash Vasdev, Ms Nandini
Sawhney, R.K.Kapoor, A.A. Khan and Anil Verma for the appearing par-
ties. F

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

In the Union Territory of Chandigarh, 5% of the seats are reserved
in favour of sons/daughters/spouses of Military/Para-Military personnel.
Orders in this behalf are issued by the Administration in its memo dated G
19th May, 1982 which were later modified in memo dated 6.9.1990. In
accordance with the said orders, Punjab Engineering College (a College
run by the Chandigarh Administration and affiliated to Punjab University)·
reserved 15 seats in favour of sons/daughters/spouses of Military/Para-
Military Personnel. The College published a prospectus for the sessio1)
1991-92. It contains inter a/ia the rules governing the admission of st\J-
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A dents to the said college. So far as the reservation in favour of children
and spouses of Military/Para-Military Personnel is concerned, the rule,
(printed at pages 23 and 24 of the Prospectus) reads as follows:

"Sons/Daughters/Spouses of Military /Para-military Personnel etc. :

B The Admission of the candidates against the reserved seats under
this category will be made on the basis of merit list prepared according to
the priorities given below in the descending order:-

I. Sons/Daughters/Spouses of defence personnel who are awardees
of gallantry decorations of Paramvir/Mahavir/Vir Chakra in per-
c son or posthumously.
OR
Sons/daughter$/spouses of defence personnel and para-military
perso~el like CRPF, BSF etc. who are killed or are totally
incapacitated in action while in service and were wholly de-
pendent on them.
D
2. Sons/daughters/spouses of defence personnel and para-military
personnel like CRPF/BSF etc. who die while in service and-were
wholly dependent on them;
3. Sons/daughters/spouses of defence personnel and para-military .
personnel like CRPF/BSF incapacitated while in service and were
E
wholly dependent on them;
4. Sons/daughters/spouses of ex-servicemen (military and para-military
personnel like CRPF/BSF who are wholly dependent on them;
5. Sons/daughters/spouses of serving defence personnel and para-
F military personnel like CRPF/BSF who are wholly dependent on
them:
The candidates claiming admissions under the category I above are
required to submit the photo-copy of citation for the gallantry award,
failing which the npplication will not be considered in this category.

G The candidates claiming admission under category I are required to
submit a certificate from the respective Headquarters regarding death/total
·mcap~citation in action while in service.

The candidates claiming admission under category 2 and 3 are re-
quired to submit a certificate from the respective Headquarters regarding
H death/total incapacitatiori·while in service.
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. MANPREETSINGH 3Zl

The.candidates claiming admission under category 4 are required to A.
submit discharge certificate from sevice and certificate of dependence
from the District Magistrate of the district concerned.

The candidates claiming admission under category 5 are required to
submit the certificate of dependence from the unit in which parent/spouse
is serving. B
The candidates who apply for admission against this ·category will
also be considered for admission against the seats allocated for Chandigarh/
General Pool to which they may belong as per their merit."

A perusal of the rule shows that the five categories are mentioned in C
the order ofpriority in the descending order.There is no allocation of
seats as between these five categories. It means that in' the first instance.
all the qualified and eligible candidates falling in category 1 will be given
admission and if any seats are left unfilled, qualified candidates' falling in
category 2 will be admitted. If there are any seats still left unfilled,
qualified candidates falling in category 3 will be given admission and so D
on. In a given year, it may well happen that all the available seats re-
1 served for children/spouses of defence personnel are taken away by the
candidates in th.e first or first and second categories. As a matter of fact,
for the year 1990-91, only 6 candidates belonging to sub-category 4 out of
90 candidates could be admitted and not the others and category 5 '\vent
Unprovided altogether. It is stated that all candidates obtaining the speci- E
fied minimum marks in the common entrance test were treated as quali-
fied for being considered for admission.

S.L.P. 16066191: The first respondent in the S.L.P. applied for ad-
mission to Punjab Engineering College under this quota. He appeared in
the common Entrance Test along with other applicants. The College Au- F
thorities considered his case placing him in category 4 since his father was
an Ex-serviceman. He could not, however, be given the admission be-
cause the 15 seats reserved for children and spouses of Military/Para-
Military Personnel in this College were allocated in the following manner:

a. There were three candidates falling in category 1 (i.e., children G
of Defence Personnel who are awardees of gallantry decoration,
Paramvir Chakra/Mahavir Chakra, in I)erson or posthumously).
All the three were given admission.

b. There were 5 candidates falling in category 2. They were admit-
~ H
328 ·suPREME COURT REPORTS· (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A c.Only one candidate falling in category 3 appeared and .was given
the seat; ·
d. There were 90 candidates falling in category 4. But only 6 seats
were available (nine seats having been taken away by sub-cat-
egories a to c). These six seats were aliotted on the basis of
inter-se merit among the candidates falling in this category. The
B first respondent being at a fairly lower position in this merit list
could not be given the admission.
No seats were left for being allotted to candidates falling in
category 5.
Finding that he has not been given admission in this College,' the
c first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana being C.W.P. No.12644 of 1991. His contention was that his
father Major Kuldip Singh Malik was awarded Shaurya Chakra for acts of
gallantry, that Shaurya Chakra is equivalent to Vir Chakra, in all respects
and, therefore, his case ought to have been considered in category I and
not ~n category 4. He submitted that along with bis application for admis-
D sion he had enclosed a copy of the citation awarded by the President of
Jildia to his father showing that his father Major Kuldip Singh Malik was
awarded Shaurya Chakra for displaying exemplary courage and leadership
in the course of bis duties in the Mizo Hills. He complained that two of
the candidates admitted under category l have received less marks than
he.
E
The High Court has allowed the Writ Petition on the following
reasoning:

"According to Regulation 695 of the Defence Services Regula-
tions relating to the Army, issueit l)y the Ministry of Defence,
Government of India, Sbaurya Ch'akra is awardable for gal-
lantry and comes after Ashoka Chakra and Kirti Chakra. Fur-
ther, according to Regulation 717, in order of precedence, this
award of Shaurya Cbakra is at number thirteen, that is immedi-
ately below Vir Chakra and Param Vir Chakra: is at number
two and Maha Vir Chakra is at number seven. Despite all this,
G the respondents, while considering the candidature of the peti-
tioner, did not grant him admission to the Bachelor of Engi-
neering Course in the current session even though be was higher
in academic merit as compared to respondent Nos. 3 and 4
who have been granted such admission. '
In reply, the respondents have pleaded that no doubt the father
H of the petitioner was decorated with Shaurya Chakra award in
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. MANPREET SINGH 329

1969, but it is gallantry award and is not strictly covered by A
the rules, regulations and the prospectus of the College, though
it is admitted that both respondents Nos.3 and 4, who have
been granted admission, were lower in merit than the peti-
tioner, so far as the academic record is concerned.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that
the approach of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of B
the petitioner is neither legally correct nor just and fair. How~
ever, as respondent Nos.3 and 4 who are lower in academic
merit than the petitioner, happen to be the sons of the awardees
of Vir Chakra and Maha Vir Chakra respectively, it would be
unfair if the admission already granted to them by the Chandigarh
Administration and the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh,
c
is set aside.
Resultantly, we allow this petition and issue a direction to
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner against the
category of sons/daughters of awardees of gallantry decora-
tions, without disturbing the admission of respondents Nos.3 D
and 4. In case no such seat is available for the pet,itioner, the
respondents shall create a seat for the purpose forthwith. This
shall also be deemed to be a direction to the Punjab University
for according necessary approval for the creation of the addi-
tional seat. There shall be no order as to costs."
E
The decision of the High Court was rendered on 28th August, 1991.
The present S.L.P. was filed in this court on 7th October, 1991. In fact, it
appears that having waited for one month and not having been admitted in
the college-in pursuance of the Judgment, the first. respondent took pro-
ceedings for Contempt against the College Authorities. The first respond-
ent, was admitted in the college on 28th October, 1991. It is now stated by
F
his counsel that the first respondent has given up his seat in another
college (Jamia Millia), on being admitted to this College. The writ peti-
tion came up for final hearing before us on 15.11.1991. We disposed of
the SLPs on that day stating that reasons for our orders will be given
today.
G
S.L.P. No.16065191

Respondents l and 2 in this S.L.P. also applied for adfnission to
· Punjab Engineering College as children of serving Defence Personnel.
They too appeared for the comi:non Entrance Test along with other appli-
cants. Since the parents of the two respondents were serving Defence H
Personnel, their ca5e was considered under category 5. As stated herein
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A before, no seats were left for being allocated to candidates falling in
category 5. Respondents l and 2 were, therefore, not given admission in
this College whereupon they approached the Punjab and Haryana High
Court by way of a writ petition being C.W.P. No.12485 of 1991. Their
case was that the categorisation of Defence Personnel was unjust and ·
unreasonable ·in as much as while the children and spouses of serving
B Defence Personnei are placed in category 5, children and spouses of Ex-
serviceman are placed· above them in category 4. According to the re-
spondents, children of serving Defence Personnel must be preferred over
the children of Ex-servicemen. In a short order, the High Court allowed
the writ petitfon and directed'that category 5 should be treated as category
4 and category 4 should be treated as category 5. The Court directed that
c admissions for the current year (1991-1992) shall be made accordingly.
The order of High court is a short one and may be set out in its entirity:
"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having
gone through their pleadings, we are of the considered view
that sub-categories No.I, 2 and 3 deserve to be retaine~ at
: their appropriate present places. So far as sub-categories No.4
D
and 5 i.e. relating to the sons, daughters and spouses of the ex-,
service personnel as well as the sons, daughters and spouses of
__ servi¢e Defence personnel are concemed, we find that the ends
of justice would be adequately met and the object for which
the reservation has been provided would be achieved if the
E sons, daughters and spouses of serving Defence personnel are
placed at sub-category No.4 i.e. above the category of Ex-
servicemen. This conclusion has been arrived ·at by us after
considering the circumstances that the wards and spouses of
serving Defence personnel are at a disadvantage in the absence
of the.ir guardians serving at far off/distant places defending
F the country vis-a-vis who have retired from the military and
are now living with their wards. Keeping these considerations
in view, we dispose of this writ petition by issuing a direction
to the respondent Union Territory Chandigarh and Principal,
Punjab Engineering College, to go ahead with the admission of
this reserved category. Therefore, so far as such categories 1,2
·o and 3 are concerned, there shall not be any change. However,
we direct that so far as sub-category No.4 is concerned, per-
sons covered in this shall be considered at No. 5 and those
covered in sub-category 5 are concerned, shall be considered
at No. 4. The admission, which are going to be finalised tO-
morrow, shall not be made in accordance with these directions.
H A copy of the order be supplied Dasti also to the learned
counsel for the parties."
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. MANPREET SINGH 331

This order was made on 30th August, 1991 whereas the present SLP A
was filed in this Court on 7th October, 199 l. These respondents too took
proceedings for contempt against the college for not implementing the
direction of the High Court. They were admitted on 28th October, 1991.
These respondents also say that on being admitted to this college they
have given up their admission in other colleges. This SLP was heard
alongwith SLP. No.16066 of 1991on15.11.91. B

S.L.P.No.16451of1991

This petition for Special Leave is directed against the order dated
9th October, 1991 passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Couit dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The peti- C
tioner (writ petitioner) applied for admission to the Punjab Engineering
College for the year 1991-92 under category 4 being the son of an Ex-
serviceman. By virtue of the directions given by the High Court in its
order dated 30.8.1991 in C.W.P.No.12485 of 1991, category 4 became
category 5 and category 5 became category 4 and admissions were being
made on that basis. The petitioner who fell in category 4 (as per the .C
prospectus of the College) and which was now converted to category 5 by
virtue of the decision of the High Court aforesaid applied to the High
Cowt to consider his case in category 4 itself and grant )lim admission.
His writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 9th October, 1991
under a short order which reads thus:
E
"Admissions are being done as per the directions issued in
Civil Writ Petition No.12485 of 1991, decided by the Division
Bench on August 30, 1991. In view of the said decision, we do
not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The Writ petitions dismissed. A
copy of this order be given dasti." F ·
The petitioner is in fact questioning the correctness of the directions
given by the High Court in C.W.P.No.12485 of 1991 disposed of on
August 30, 91. .

Counsel for Chandigarh Administration and.the College (petitioners G
in SLP's 16066 and 16065 of 1991) contended that the High Court has
exceeded its jurisdiction_in granting the impugned directions. He submit-
ted that High Court, while exercising the writ jurisdiction conferred upon
by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an Appellate
Authority over the rule making authority nor can it re-write the rules. If
the rule or any portion of it was found to be bad, the High Court could H
have struck it down and directed the rule-making authority to re-frame the
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 s.c.R,

A rule and make admissions on that basis but the High Court could not have
either switched the categories or directed that Shaurya Chakra should be
treated as equivalent to Vir Chakra. By its directions, the High Couit has
completely upset the course of admissions under this reserved quota and
has gravely affected the chances of candidates falling in category 4 by ·
down-grading them as category 5 without even hearing them. These are
B good reasons for the categorisation done by the Administration which was
adopted by the College. He submitted that while Paramvir Chakra, Mahavir
Chakra and Vir Chakra are awarded for gallantry in war, Ashok Chakra,
. Kirti Chakra and Shaurya Chakra are awarded for gallantry, otherwise than
in war. Shaurya Chakra was awarded to the father of the first respondent
in SLP .No.16066 of 1991 for his gallant conduct in counter-insurgency
C operations in Mizo Hills. It was not a war. He placed, before us, the true
extract of order of precedence of awardees. It reads thus:

"TRUE EXTRACT OF ORDER OF PRECEDENCE OF AW ARDS.
717. Order of Precedence of Awards-
D The order of precedence of various awards is as follows:-
Bharat Ratna
Param Vir Chakra
Ashoka Chakra
Padma Vibhushan
Padma Bhushan
E Param Vishisht Seva Medal
Maha Vir Chakra
Kirti Chakra
Padma Shri
Sarvottam Jeevan Raksha Padak
Ati Vishisht Seva Medal
F Vir Chakra
Shaurya Chakra
The President's police and Fire Service Medal for galJantry.
Sena/Nao Sena/Vayu Sena Medal
Vishisht Seva Medal
The Police Medal for gallantry
G Uttam Jeevan Raksha Padak
Wound Medal
The General Service Medal 1947.
Samar Seva Star 1965
Poorvi Star
Paschimi Star
H Raksha Medal 1965."
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. MANPREET SINGH 333

Counsel says that by its directions contained in the two orders im- A
pugned herein, the High Court has exercised a jurisdiction, which really
did not f:\elong to it. We are inclined to agree with him.

Counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P.No.16451 of 1991 supported the
aforesaid arguments.
B
On the other hand, the counsel for respondents (writ petitioners in
the High Court) in the first two SLPs. supported the order of the High
Court and submitted further that since the said respondents have given up
their seats in other colleges and have been admitted in the Punjab Engi-
neering College, any order throwing them out from the Punjab Engineer-
ing College, at this juncture would cause them irreparable prejudice. They C
submitted that the Chandigarh Administration and the College authorities
have been sleeping over the matter until a contempt petition was filed and
that they moved this Court only after they were summoned in the Con-
tempt proceedings. They should be held dis-entitled to any relief on ac-
c.ount of laches, submitted the counsel.
D
We are of the considered opinion that the orders of High Court are
wholly unsustainable. We shall consider both the directions separately.
Let us first consider SLP 16066of1991, arising from C.W.P.12644/91.

The rule as framed by the Chandigarh Administration and as pub-
lished by the College in its prospectus in the year 1991-92 placed in E
category I children and s'pouses of only those Defence Personnel who
were awardees of gallantry decorations of Paramvir Chakra, Mahavir Chakra
or Vir Chakra in person or posthumously. It did not include Ashok Chakra,
Kirti Chakra or Shaurya Chakra. The validity of the rule was not expressly
questioned before the High Court. Assuming that it was so questioned and
assuming that the High Court was satisfied that the rule was discrimina- F
tory and bad for the reason of not including Ashok Chakra etc., the only
course open to it was to strike down the offending rule. It could also have
directed the authorities to reframe the rule and to make adrn issions ac-
cordingly. High Court however did not choose to do so. It merely directed
that since Shaurya Chakra is immediately below Vir Chakra in the order
of precedence and since respondents 3 and 4 in the writ petition admitted G
under sub-category I have obtained lesser marks than the writ petitioner,
he should be given admission without disturbing the admission given to
respondents 2 and 3 in that writ petition. The entire reasoning of the High
Court has been extracted by us herein above. It shows that absolutely no
reason i.s assigned for granting the said direction. All that it says is that
since Shaurya Chakra is also awardable for gallantry and is placed imme- H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A diately below Vir Chakra, the writ petitioner should be granted admission.
-If really t~e High Court was of the opinion that Shaurya Chakra ~s equiva- /
lent to V1r Chakra and should be treated on the same par as V1r Chakra'-
then it should spelt out the position also of Ashok Chakra and Kirti Chakra.
which' are above Shaurya Chakra. According to the Rules notified chil-
dren/spouses of Ashok Chakra, Kirti Chakra & Shaurya Chakra awardees
B did not fall under category l nor under categories 2 or 3. They would fall
under category 4 or category 5, as the case may be, depending upon
whether their parent/spouse was an ex-service person or a serving person.
There may have been other candidates who are the children/spouses of
Shaurya Chakra awardees and for that matter, Ashok chakra and Kirti
Chakra awardees who may have obtained more marks than the writ peti- -
c tioner (first respondent in SLP 16066 of 1991) but who did not eta~ a
seat under category l nor were considered as such. They may not hav.e
stated the fact of their parent/spouse being a Ashok chakra/Kirti Chakra
Shaurya Chakra awardee, nor filed the relevant citation, since it was not
relevant as per the published Rules. Had the proper course been followed,
all of them could have applied properly and could have been considere_d-.
D By saying this we do not mean to say that the Rule is bad. We do not
me'an to say so at all. There may be good reasons for the Rule as pub-
lished "'t or there may not be. That is not the issue. What we are saying is
that if the High Court was of the opinion that all the gallantry awardees
(including Ashok, Kitti arid Shaurya Chakra) should be placed in category
I, it should have said so, struck down the category-and, may be, directed
E reframing of rule and admissions made on that basis. -
Coming to SLP 16065 of 1991, the position appears to been e~en
worse. Without assigning any reason the High Court has directed that
category 4 should be made category 5 and category 5 should be made
category 4. In short, it has switched these two categories. Again, we must
F say that if the High Court thought that this categorisation was discrimina-
tory and bad it ought to have struck down the categorisation to that extent
and directed the authority to're-frame the rule. It would then have been
open to the rule making authority either to merge these two categories or
delete one or both of them, depending upon the opinion- they would have
fonned on a review of the situation. We must make it clear again that we
G express no opinion on the question of validity or otherwise of the rule. We
are only saying that the High Court should not have indulged in the
exercise of 'switching' the categories, - and that too without giving any
reasons thereafter. Thereby, it has practicably assumed the rule of rule-
making authority, or, at any rate, assumed the role of an Appellate Au-
thority. That is clearly not the function of the High Court acting under.
H Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Now, let us notice the implica-
tions and consequences of the said 'switching'.
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. MANPREET SINGH 335

By directing that category 4 should be treated as category 5 and A
conversely category 5 should be treated as category 4, the High Court has
prejudicially affected the rights of candidates falling under category 4
without even hearing them. It must be remembered that these categories
are mentioned in the order of priority as emphasised hereinbefore. A rule-
making authority need not observe the rule of hearing, but the High Court
exercising its judicial power cannot dispense with the requirement and B
that is precisely the grievance of the petitioner in S.L.P.16451/91 arising
from V.W.P.14606 of.1991. He was entitled to be considered under cat-
r egory 4 (as per the prospectus) whereas by virtue of the High Court's
order his category has become category 5, the result of which is that no
seat may be left for his category, whereas the said category was entitled to
some seats at least according to the Rules as framed and published by the C.
Administration and College. Suffice is to say that the giving the said
direction, while the admission were in progress, the situation has .been
confounded beyond recall.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to
issue to any person or authority (including the government) directions, D
orders or writs including writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, mandamus,
Prohibition, quo warrants and certiorari, or any of them for the enforce-
ment of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
-
Though the Article itself does not contain any restrictive words, the
Courts have, ever the years, evolved certain self-constraints though, we. E
are not bound by the procedural technicalities governing these high
prorogative writs in English law. As observed by a Constitution Bench in
. -~ ,: Bassappa v. Nagappa [1955] l S.C.R. 250 at 256:

"In view of the express provisions in our Constitution we need
not now look back to the early history or the procedural tech- F
nicalities of these writs in English law, nor feel oppressed by
any difference or change of opinion, expressed in particular
cases of English Judges. We can make an order or issue a writ
in the nature of certiorari in all appropriate cases and in appro-
priate manner, so long as we keep to the broad and fundamen-
tal principles that regulate the exercise of jurisdiction in the G
matter of granting such writ in English Jaw."
While this is not the place to delve into or detail the self-constraints
to be observed by the Courts while exercising the jurisdiction under Arti-
cle 226, one of them, which is relevant herein, is beyond dispute viz.,
while acting under Article 226, the High Court does not sit and/or act as H
an Appellate Authority over the orders/actions of the Subordinate Authori-
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A ties/Tribunals. Its' jurisdiction is supervisory in nature. One of the main
objectives of this jurisdiction is to keep the government and several other
authorities and Tribunals within the bounds of their respective jurisdic-
tion. The High Court must ensure that while performing this function it
does not overstep the well-recognized bounds of its own jurisdiction.

B Though we are satisfied that the orders and directions made by the
High Court are totally unsupportable in law, the subsequent developments
dissuade us from allowing these SLPs. As stated above, the three respond-
ents-writ-petitioners (first respondent in SLP.16066/91 and respondents I
...
and 2 in SLP.16065/91) have been admitted into this college (Punjab
Engineering College) on 28th October, 1991, whereupon they have given
c up the seats which they had obtained in other colleges. This statement of
theirs is not disputed either by the Chandigarh Administration or the
college authorities. Depriving the said respondents of their admission in
this college at this stage would result in grave and irreparable prejudice to
them. We think that the Administration and College authorities ought to
have acted with more alacrity and approached this Court earlier than they
D did. By the- time, these SLPs were taken up by us and stay granted, the
said respondents were already admitted into the College and, they say,
they had given up their seats in the other colleges. On this score alone, _we
decline to interfere with the orders in C.W.P.12644/91and12485/91.

Now coming to SLP 16451 of 1991, the situation is this: By virtue
E of the orders of the High Court, three students who were not entitled to
admission according to rules have been given admission against the three
.vacancies which had arisen since the finalization of the admissions. The
college authorities say that but for the orders of the High Court, these
three vacancies would have gone to the first three candidates in the wait- ,.,.
ing list. The petitioner in SLP 16451 of 1991 says that he is one such
F person in the waiting list and he would have obtained admission but for
the admission given to the three candidates in pursuance of the High
Court orders. We do not know whether the petitioner's case is true. All
the same, we think it appropriate to make the following direction: the
college authorities shall create three more seats in the said course and
admit the first three available students in the waiting list against those
G seats. The Chandigarh Administration shall pass the necessary orders in
this behalf. Action in terms of this direction shall be taken forthwith by
the Chandigarh Administra1ion . and the college authorities.

Before we part with this case we wish to make an observation. In
matters of this nature where the High court directs students to be admitted
H in Educational Institutions, it would be advisable if the High Court stays
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION v. MANPREET SINGH 337

the operation of its order for a period of about 3 to 4 weeks, if a request A
therefor is made by the Educational Institution or the State, as the case
maybe.

SLPs disposed ofaccordingly.

R.P. Petitions disposed of. ·