Holding

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction; admissions must be based on merit and the Institute's capacity, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals.

Summary

The Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, a deemed university, conducted admissions to its B.E. programme based on a Combined Entrance Test and a merit list, admitting students up to serial number 1127 and later admitting ten additional candidates to meet expected drop‑outs, leaving a total strength of 178 out of a capacity of 180. Several candidates filed writ petitions in the Punjab & Haryana High Court alleging vacant seats and seeking admission, and the High Court directed the Institute to admit up to ten of them irrespective of merit and beyond its capacity. The Institute appealed, contending that the High Court ignored its affidavit showing only two genuine vacancies and that admissions must be based on comparative merit. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 by ordering admissions without reasons and without regard to merit or the Institute’s capacity. It affirmed that admissions should be governed by merit and capacity, and since the respondents were already admitted, no further interference was warranted. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct admission of students beyond the institution's capacity and without regard to merit.
Whether the Institute qualifies as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 for the purpose of invoking Article 226.
Whether a writ of mandamus is an appropriate remedy for candidates seeking admission to a professional course.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 226

Subjects

admissionmeritwrit of mandamusextraordinary jurisdictionArticle 226higher educationcapacity

Judgment

THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND
A
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. "
c I(
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 "

similar writ petitions were pending before the High Court.
T
H

394
THAPAR INSTITUTE v. A. TANEJA .395

Against the above-said orders of the High Court, the appellant- A
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
B
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 c
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
D
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
E
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
F
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
G
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-Institute as well as to the
students who stood higher in merit than almost all the respondent-
students except Respondent No. 6. [399E-H]
H
396 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

2. Since, however, the respondent-students stand already admit-
A
ted, and the more meritorious students cannot now avail of the seats
given to the respondents due to lapse of time, their pursuit of the course
is not interfered with. I400A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos.
B 4885-91of1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.1989 & 6.10.1989 of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 11218/89 and 12519,
12520, 12521, 12593, 12868 & 12463 of 1989.

P.H. Parekh, Manoj Swamp and J.P. Pathak for the Appellant.
c
Krishan Kumar and Mehta Dave & Co. forthe Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

o SAW ANT, J. These appeals are directed against two Orders of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court by which the High Court has
directed the appellant-Institute to admit respondent-students I to 8B
to its B.E. course irrespective of their merits.

2. The relevant admitted facts are that on May 24 and 25, 1989,
E respondent No. 9-Punjab University held a Combined Entrance Test
(C.E.T.) for admission to B.E. course (Session 1989-90) conducted by
4 different institutes including the appellant-Institute. On June 26,
1989, the University declared the merit list of students who appeared
in C.E.T. June 30, 1989 was the last date fixed for submitting applica-
tions by students to individual institutes. The students were given
F choice of the institutions and they were required to state their choice in
order of preference. The representatives from the 4 institutes met
together at Cnandigarh from 24th to 27th July 1989 to finalise the
admissions to the 4 institutes. The meeting of the representatives of
the 4 institutes was necessary to ensure that the students were given the
institutes of their choice in the order of merit, subject, of course, to the
G students applying to the particular institutes and that the student did
not get admission at more than one institute at a time. The Committee
of representatives interviewed the students and awarded them the
institutes of their choice in the order of their respective merits.
Accordingly, the appellant-Institute drew up its merit list of candi-
dates. Intervi~ws were held in the respective institutes including the
H appellant-Institute for filling up the reserved seats other than those
THAPAR INSTITUTE v. A. TANEJA [SAWANT, J.] 397

reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and also for fil-
ling up seats in general category which fell vacant subsequently as a
A
result of the students leaving the appellant-Institute. On August 14,
1989, a second round of interviews was held in all the institutes includ-
ing the appellant-Institute for filling seats which fell vacant as a result
of the students leaving the appellant-Institute subsequently. Inciden-
tally, this was also the last date of admission to B .E. course as was B
notified in the prospectus of the appellant-Institute. However, the last
date was extended to 25th August, 1989 by an advertisement in the
/ newspaper, namely, Tribune published on August 19, 1989 wherein it
was clearly mentioned that the admission to the course will be closed
on August 25, 1989. The advertisement was repeated in another news-
paper, namely, the Times of India on August 20, 1989. The appellant·
Institute closed the admissions at 5 .00 p.m. on August 25, 1989. On thi' c
day, the position of the appellant-Institute was that the last student
who was admitted to the B.E. Course was at serial number 1127 in the
."'--- - merit list prepared by the University as per the results of the C.E.T.

3. On August 30, 1989, respondents 1 to 4 filed a Writ Petition D
No. 11218/89 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court for a direction
to the appellant-Institute to extend its last date of admission and to
admit them to the B.E. course in the appellant-Institute alleging that
six seats were lying vacant in the Institute.

\,_ 4. In the meanwhile, as usual, the first test of the B.E. course E
was held by the appellant-Institute after six weeks of the commence-
ment of the course. On September 19, 1989, the appellant-Institute
filed its written statement to the writ petition objecting to the
maintainability of the petitfon against the appellant-Institute as it was
:.- not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India. It was also pointed out in the written statement that since the F
past experience showed that some students left the Institute as soon as
":J.. they got admission in the other institutes, the appellant-Institute had
admitted 10 additional students to the B.E. course. The total seats
available in the B.E. course in the appellant-Institute were 180 and
students at numbers 181-190 were admitted to meet this contingency.
It was also pointed out in the written statement that the last date of G
admission to the course was fixed by the appellant-Institute taking into
account the said past experience as well as to put a seal of finality on
the process of admission which would otherwise continue indefinitely.
On September 20, 1989, the appellant-Institute also filed a short
affidavit in the writ petition stating therein that the admissions to the
B.E. course had closed on 25th August, 1989 and no student had been H
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 2 S.C.R.

admitted thereafter. It was also pointed out that regular classes had
A ,
begun, and the first terminal examination had been held from 4th
September, 1989 to 9th September, 1989 which carried weightage of ,-
about 30% marks. Hence, the students admitted at the helated stage
would not he able to cover up lecture-attendance and no seat in excess
of the total seats could be filled up.
B ,.
L

4. On September 21, 1989, the High Court allowed the writ
petition by proceeding on the assumption that more than half a dozen
seats were lying vacant with the appellant-Institute. The High Court
held that belated admissions were something that the students seeking ' ~
such admissions would worry about rather than the appellant-Insti-
tute. The appellant-Institute was also directed to grant admissions to
c respondents 1 to 4 in the B .E,. course forthwith. As pointed out by the
appellant-Institute, on that day the factual position with regard to
seats in the course was that out of 190 students who were granted
_...(
admission, 12 students had left leaving a total strength of 178 students.
Since the last date for admission was August 25, 1989, 178 students had
D continued in the course with regular instructions and tests one of which
was already held as stated earlier between 4th and 9th September,
1989, six weeks after the commencement of the course.

5. A further batch of Writ Petitions, namely, Writ Petitions Nos.
12519, 12520, 12521, 12593, 12868, 12463 all of 1989 filed by respon-
E dents 5 to SB respectively were allowed by the High Court on October ..,(
6, 1989 directing the appellant-Institute to admit the respective
respondents to the said course. It also further appears that three other
similar writ petitions filed by other students seeking admission to the
course in the appellant-Institute are pending before the High Court for
preliminary hearing. The appellant-Institute further points out that the
second test of the said course was scheduled to be held from 23rd to
.
F
28th October, 1989.

6. It is not disputed before us that whereas the last student
~ "'
admitted on merit in the appellant-Institute was at serial number 1127
in the merit list prepared by the University as per the Combined En-
G · trance Test, the respondent-students were at the serial numbers in the
said merit list, as follows: respondent No. 1 ( 1145), No. 2 (1147), No. 3
(1161), No. 4 (1277), No. 5 (1259), No. 6 (1112), No. 7 (1266), No. 8
(1218), No. SA (1189) and No. SB (1245). Thus it will be seen that 'r
except for respondent No. 6 who had not earlier applied for being
admitted to the appellant-Institute and had opted for some other Insti-
H tute, all the respondents had secured lower numbers in the merit list.
THAPAR INSTITUTE v. A. TANEJA [SAWANT, J.] 399

What is further, the students who were at a higher serial number of
A
merit list were still waiting for admission to the appellant-Institute,
when the High Court directed the appellant-Institute to admit the
respondent-students. What is more, even 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 to the appellant-
Institute according to their merit. The relief claimed in Writ Petition B
No. 11218/89 may be reproduced here by way of illustration:

"this Hon'ble Court may please to issue a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the date of
admission and to admit the petitioners in the B.E. course
as per their merits;". (emphasis supplied)
c
The High Court further not only ignored the fact which was specifi-
cally pointed out in the appellant-Institute's affidavit in reply before it,
that there were no seats available in the appellant-Institute whose
capacity was only 180 seats but also the fact that there were more
meritorious students than the respondents as per the C.E.T. who could D
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 eomparative merits ordained it and
not otherwise. They could claim no merit over other meritorious
students merely because they had approached the Court for securing
admission. E

7. There was further nothing wrong in the appellant-Institute
admitting 10 more students in the circumstances pointed out above.
The Institute has a capacity of only 180 students. To meet the contin-
gency of the students leaving it soon after admission they had admit-
ted, as they do every year, 10 more students. As it turned out, 12 of the F
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 G
meritorious, to be admitted. 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-
Institute as well as to the students who stood higher in merit than
almost all the respondent-students except respondent No. 6. We ref-
rain from making any further comments on the impugned order. H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [199()) 2 S.C.R.

A 8. Since the respondent-students stand already admitted, and
the more meritorious students cannot now avail of the seats given to /
the respondents due to lapse of time, we do not propose to interfere 'r
with their pursuit of the course. It is for this reason that we are
dismissing the appeals.
B In the circumstances, the appeals stand dismissed, but with no
order as to costs.

G.N. Appeals dismissed.

./ -