Holding

Students wrongly admitted who have completed one or two semesters may continue their studies, and the appropriate remedy is to create additional seats to be filled on merit, without giving preferential treatment to the petitioners.

Summary

The Punjab Engineering College admitted sixteen students for the 1982‑83 academic year in violation of its admission rules. The Punjab & Haryana High Court struck down those admissions, but the students had already completed one or two semesters. The Supreme Court held that cancelling their admission at this stage would be unjust, allowing them to continue their studies. To remedy the breach of rules, the Court directed the creation of sixteen additional super‑numerary seats, to be filled on the basis of merit from the existing 1982‑83 merit lists, with equal allocation between Chandigarh and general candidates. The Court rejected the petitioners' claim to preferential admission to these seats, emphasizing merit over litigative persistence. The appeals were disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether admissions made contrary to the college's rules can be set aside after the students have completed one or two semesters.
Whether the courts should cancel such admissions or allow the students to continue their studies.
Whether additional seats may be created to remedy the illegal admissions despite alleged financial constraints.
Whether the writ petitioners are entitled to preferential admission to the additional seats or whether admission must be based on merit.
Whether the State can be compelled to increase the sanctioned strength of seats in an educational institution.

Subjects

admissionseducational institutionsequitywrit petitionsupernumerary seatsmeritprocedural delayrule violation

Judgment

801

PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE ETC. ETC.
A
v,

SANJAY GULATI AND ORS.

April 20, 1983
B
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD C.J., R.S. PATHAK AND
SAJIYASACHI MUKHARJ!, JJ.]

lu$1ice to students-Adn1issions n1ade contrary to Rules and Regulations-
Interferance by the cou'rts-Adjiistn1ent of equities between students wrongly
admitted vis-a-vis students unjustly excluded-Solution-Creation of super- c
numerary seats-Beneficiaries should include non-writ Petitioners who are higher-
up in the merit list.

Admissions ·to· the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh for the
academic year 1982-83 granted to eight candidates ·by what fs described as the
spot test method, to seven wards of the employees of the Punjab Engineering D
College nnd another were Struck down by the Punjab High Court as in
violation of the rules and regulations goyerning admissions to the institution.
_However, the students wrongly adn1itted were allowed to-continue their studies
on humanitarian grounds. Hence the appeals after obtaining special leave of
the Court.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court E.
HELD : f-: t 'Since all the sixteen students wrongly admitted have
already completed one or twO sen1esters it 1 will be. unjust to cancel their
admission at this stage and to remove their names from the rolls of the College,
and tQ.erefore, they must be· allowed to continue their Studies as if their •
admission to the College suffered from no defect Or illegality. [803 F-GJ
/
F
I : 2 Cases like these in which adrllissions granted to students in
educational institutions are quashed . raise a sensitive human issue. lt is
unquestionably true that· thC authorities who are charged with the duty of
admitting students to educational institutions must act· fairly and objectively·.
, If admissions to these institutions are 1nade on ~~xtraneous considerations and
the authorities \iolate the norms set down by the rules and regulations., a sense
of resentment and frustration is bound to ·be generated in the minds of those G
unfortunate young students who are wrongly or purposefully left out. On the
other hand, students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the consequences
of the manipulations, if any, made on their behalf by interested persons.
[804 B-D-F]

I .; 3 Law's delays work their wonders in such diverse fashions with the H
result th~t the courts :find it difficult to adjust equities between students who are
Wrongly admitted and th< se who are unjustly excluded. Since by the time the
High Courts take up the matter and fiuallf d~cl<;le the cas~s~ 1$tuc!en~s whc;> @.nf
802 0

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983i 2 s.c.R.

wrongly admitted finish one or two semesters of the course and the courts are
.,
A regretfully pcrforced to allow them to continue their studies. [804 F-GJ

The court observed .that ''this situation has emboldened the erridg
.-,,.-
authorities or educational institutions of var'ious States to indulge in Violating
the norms of admission with impunity. They seem to feel that the courts will
leave the iidmissions in tact, even if the admissions are granted contrary to the
rules and regulations, which is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. · Laws are
B meant to be obeyed, not flouted. Some day not distant, if admissions are
quashed for the reason that they were made Wrongly, it will have to be directed
that the names of students who are wrongly admitted should be removed from
the ro_lls of the institution." [804 H, SOS A-BJ

2 : 1 The contention that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased
c since the State Government cannot 1neet the additional expenditure which will
be ·caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be
able to cope up with the additional influx of students cannot be accepted.
[805 C-DJ

2 : 2 Those who infringe the rule must pay ·for their lapse and the wrong
done to the deserving students who ought. to have beeµ admitted has to be
D rectified. The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the
strength of seats is increased in proportion to-the wrong adnlissions made.
. ' [805 E-F]

The court directed that 8 seats should be for the students from the
Chandigarh list and the other 8 ,i;eats from the General List of students which
. were prepared for the academic year 1982-83. [805 G-H]
E
3. The reservation of the sixteen seats are not open exclusively to the
writ petitioners. The circumstance that they filed wdt petitions- in the High
,. Court but others similarly aggrieved did not, will not justify the granting of
admission to them by ignoring those others who were higher up in the merit
list. [806 A-BJ
F
[The Court directed the authorities to fill up the additional vacancies
"on the basis of open merit''l

State of Kera/a v. Kumari T.P. Roshana, [1979] 2 SCR 974; Ajay' Basia
etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehrawardi, [1981] 2 SCR 89; Arti Sapru v. State of
Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., [1981J 3 SCR 34, followed.
G
,
0
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3779,
3653-66, 3524·3528, 3054 of 1982 & C.A. No; 4066 of 1983.

Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
H
the 14th September, 1982 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
C.W.P. Nos. 3669, 3706, 3499, 3443, 3498, 3919, 3958, 3525, 3750,
3912, 3572 1 3663, 36801 3731, 3566 ~ 3750 of 1982 respectively.
PUNJAB ENGG. COLLEGE v. SANJAY GULATI (Chandrachud, C.J.) 803

_ Kapil Sibbal, R.C. Pathak and Atul c:
Jain for the Appellant
A
in CA. 3779/82, CAs. 3653-67 /82 & for the Respondents in rest of
the Appeals.
P.R. Mridul and R.K. Anand for the Appellant in CAs. 3524-
26of1982.
Prem Malhotra and Sarva Mitter for the Appellant in CA. B
3527/82.
Rameshwar Dayal for the Appellant in CA. 3528/82.

Mrs. J. Wad for the Appellant in CA. 3054/82.

Randhir Jain for- the- Intervener.
c
Wadhwani, A. Minocha, P.C. Khunger, Harbans Lal; N.K.
Aggarwal for the Appellants in CA. 4065/83

R.K. Jain, P.K. Jain, A.K; Goel, K.K. Mohan, Randhir Jain; D'.
P.R. Mridul, Ravi Kant Chadha and K.B. Rohatgi, for the appearing
Respondents.

The Judgffient of the Court was delivered by

CHANDRCHUD, CJ. Eight candidates were admitted to the
E
l!unjab Engineering College, Chandigarh- for the academic year 1982-83,
by what is described as the "spot test". Their admission has been struck
down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that it
is contrary _to the rules and regulations governing admissions to the
.
institution. - We are of the opinion that since
- these students have
already completed one or two semesters, it will be unjust to cancel
F

their admission at this stage and to remove their names from the rolls
of the College. We therefore direct that they will be allowed to con-
tinue their further studies in the College uniterrupted.
G'
By the same standard, even· though the admission of seven
wards of the employees'· of the Punjab Engineering College has been
quashed by the High Court on the ground that such admissions are
contrary to the relevant rules of . admission,· it will not be fair. to
-- cancel their admission at this stage. They h~ve also, like the· eight
"spot test" students, completed either one or two semesters of the
ii-
academic year 1982-83. They will be allowed to continue.their furthet
tudics in the Collese uninterruptecl.
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983) 2 S.C.R.

The admission granted to the candidate Ashok Kumar Kaushik
A has also been struck down by the High Court, but he too · will be
allowed to continue his further studies in the College. We cannot
apply to him a different standard than the one which we have applied
to the fifteen candidates referred to above, who are being allowed to
continue their studies as if their admission to the College suffeled
from no defect of illegality.
B

Cases like these in which admissions granted lo students in
educational institutions are quashed raise a sensitve human issue. It is
unquestionably true that the authorities who are cha.rged with the duty
c of admitting students to educational insitutions inust act fairly and
objectively. If admissions to these institutions are made on extraneous
considerations and the authorities violate the norms set down by the
rules and regulations, a sense of resentme!!t and frustration is bound to
be generated in the minds of those unfortunate young students who
are wrongly of purposefully left out. Indiscipline in educational institu-
D tions is not wholly unconnected with a lack of sense of moral values
on the part of the administrators and teachers alike. But the problem
which the courts are faced with in these cases is, that it is not until a
period of six months or a year elapses after the admissions are made
that the intervention of the court comes into play. Writ Petitions
E involuing a challenge to such admissions are. generally taken up by
the High Courts as promptly as possible but even then, students who
are wrnngly admitted fnish one or two cemesler of the course by
the time the decision of the High Court is pronoun ed. A further
appeal to. this Court consumes .still mo1;e time, which creates furth~r
difficulties in adjusting equites between stundents who are wrongly
F
- ·~
admitted and those who are unjustly excluded. Inevitably, the Court
has to rest content with an acade~ic pronounceinent of the true
legal position. Students who are wrongly admitted do not suffer the
consequences of the manipulations, if any, made on their. behalf by
interested persons. This has virtually come to mean that one must get
into an educational institution by means, fair or foul : once you are
G in, no one will p\lt you out. Law's delays work their wonders in
· such diverse fashions.

We find that this situation has emboldened the erring authorities
H of educational institutions of various States to indulge in· violating
the norms of admission with impunity They seem to feel that the
(:9urt wijl leave the admissions in fact, even if t]le admissions are
PUNJA'ii ENGG. COLLEGE v. SANJ.~Y GULATI (Chandrachud, C.J.) SOS

granted contrary to the rules and regulations, This is a most unsatis•
factory state of affairs. Laws 11re meant to be obeyed, not flouted. A
Some day, not distant, if admissions are quashed for the reason that
.they were made wrongly, it will have to be directed that the names
of students who are wrongly admitted should be removed froin the .
roll of the institution. We might have been justified in 'adopting.
this course in this case itself, but we thought that we may utter a B
clear warning before taking that precipitate step. We have decided,
regretfully, to allow the aforesaid sixteen students to continue their
studies, despite the careful ane weighty finding of the High. Cou'rt
that at least eight of them, .namely, the s~ven wards of employees
and Ashok Kumar Kaushik, were admitted to the Engineering Course
i.n violation of the relevant rules and regulations. - C
\~

It is strange that in all such' cases, the authorities who .make
admissiOns by ignoring the rules of admission contend that the seats
cannot correspondingly be increased,, since the State Government can-
not meet the additional expenditure \vhich wi'l be caused be increasing D
the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope.
up with the additional influx of students. An. additional plea avail-
able in regard to Medical Colleges is that the Indian Medical Conucil
will not sanction additional seats. We cannot entertain this sub-
mission. Those who infringe the rules- must pay for their lapse and E
the wrong do~1c to the deserving students who ought to have been
admitted has to be rectified. The best solution under the circums-
_tances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proror-
tion to the wrong admissions made.

( F
Since in this case eight students, and perhaps sixteen were
wrongly admitted, we direct that over and above sanctioned strength
for the next academic year commencing in July 1983, sixteen .addi-
tional seats shall be created, to which sixteen students shall be admitted
to the Punjab Engineering College from the lists which were prepared
for the 1982-83 academic year. These sixteen seats shall be appor- G
tioned in an equal measure between the local students belonging to
Chandigarh and the general group o.f students belonging to areas
'Outside Chandigarh. That-is to say, eight students will be admitted
from the Chandigarh List of students and eight from. the General List H·
of students, which were ·prepared for the last academic year, viz,
1982-83. .. . .
•
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19S3l 2s,c.k.

The only question which- survives is whether the sixteen writ
A ·petitio11ers should be admittd to those sixteen seats or whether ~
admission to those seats should be strictly in accordance with
merit. -We are unable to accept the submission made by the
petitoners that they should be preferred for admission irrespective of
merit. The circumstance that they filed writ petitions in .the High
Court but others similarly aggrieved did not, will not, justify the
B
granting of admission .to them by ignoring those others 'Who were
higher up in the merit list.

When a similar question arose before this Court in State of
Kera/a· v. Kumari T.P. Roshana,(') the Court directed the State
c ~Government io admit thirty more students. Krishna Iyer, J,_ observed : .

"The selection of these- 30 students will not be con·
fined to those who have moved this Court or the High
Court by way of writ proceedings or appeal. The measure
D is academic excellence, not litigative persistence. It will
be thrown open to the first 30, strictly according to merit
meas~red by marks secured." -

In Ajay Hasia etc. v. Kha1id Mujib Sehravardi, (1) the State
Government the College, and 'the Society which was running· the
E College, all agreed before this Court that the best fifty students out of
those who had applied for admission for the academic year 1979-80
and who had failed to secure admission, would be granted admission
for the academic year 1981-82 and that the seats allocated to them
would be in addition to the normal intake of students in the College.
F In Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others, (•) after
allowing the writ petitions of candidates who were wrongly denied _
admission to the Medical Colleges, it was observed by one of us
Path,ak, J., that :

"The candidates who will be displaced in consequence
G have already completed _a few months of study and in
order to avoid serious prejudice and detriment to their
careers it is hoped that the State Government will deal
sympathetically with their cases so that while effect is

,(I) (1979]2 S.C.R. 974,
(2) [19811 2 S.C.R. 89.
(3) (1981] 3 S.C.R. 34.
- .
PUNIAB ENGG. COLLEGE v. SANJAY GULATI (ChandrachuJ. c.i.) 867 '
given to the judgment of this Court the rules may be
suitably relaxed, if possible by a temporary increase iii the A
number of seats, in order to accommodate the displaced
candidates."

The authorities were directed by this Court to fill up the
additional vacancies "on the basis of open inerit." B
Following these decisions, we direct that admission to the 16
additional vacancies f()r the academic year 1983-84 shall be made in
accordance with merit on the basis of the lists which were prepared
for the academic year 1982-P for the Chandigarh group of students
and the general group of students.
c
We must add that tliough we are satisfied that the admission
of seven wards of employees of the. College and of Ashok Kumar
Kaushik is contrary to the rules and regulations, we have not· exami:
ned the correctness of the finding of the High Court in regard to the
alleged illegality of the admission of the eight· students wh'o were D
admitted by the test of "spot selec.tion". We will only reiterate
as to this latter class of admissions that the conduct of the authorities
charged with the duty bf making admissions to educational institu-
tions has to be above suspicion. They cannot play with the
lives and careers of the young aspirants who, standing at the
threshold of life, look to the future. with hope and expectations. E

The appeals. will stand disposed of in •accondance with this
order.

S.R.

•