Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12
PETITIONER:
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MANPREET SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/11/1991
BENCH:
SAWANT, P.B.
BENCH:
SAWANT, P.B.
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 435 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 322
1992 SCC (1) 380 JT 1991 (4) 436
1991 SCALE (2)1030
ACT:
Punjab Engineering College--Admissions---Union Territory
of Chandigarh Memo dated 19.5.1982/6.9.1990--Reservation of
seats for children/spouses of military/para-military person-
nel-College prospectus dividing them in 5
sub-categories--Admissions to be given in order of priority
in descending order---High Court’s direction to switch the
categories affecting the order of priority Legality of.
Constitution of India 1950:
Art. 226--High Court’s jurisdiction-Whether supervisory
in nature- objectives of writ jurisdiction explained-High
Court not to sit/act as an appellate authority over the rule
making authorities.
Practice and Procedure:
College admissions--Whether High Court should stay for
3-4 weeks implementation of its order admitting a student,
if so prayed.
HEADNOTE:
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/pars-
military personnel. Pursuant thereto the Punjab Engineering
College, reserved 15 seats for such candidates. For the
purpose of admission the college categorised in its prospec-
tus these candidates into 5 sub-categories. These belonging
to the respective categories and obtaining qualifying marks
in the entrance examination were to be admitted meritwise in
the order of priority in descending order: sub-category 1
consisted of children/spouses of defence personnel who were
awardees of gallantry decorations of Paramvir/Mahavir/Vir
Chakra in person or posthumously, or, dependent
children/spouses of defence/pars military personnel who were
killed or totally incapacitated in action while in service.
Dependent childern/spouses of defence/pars military person-
nel who died in service were put in sub-category 2. Subcate-
gory 3 comprised the dependent children/spouses of
defence/pars military personnel incapacitated while in
service, Dependent children/spouses of Ex-servicemen (mili-
tary and pars military) were
323
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12
placed in sub-category 4; and those of serving defence/pars
military 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 be-
longing to sub-category 4. Sub-category 5 went unprovided.
Respondent no.1 in SLP No.16066/91, who appeared in the
entrance 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 ’Shaurya
Chakra’ which was equivalent to Vir Chakra and therefore his
case ought to have been considered in sub-category 1. On
behalf of the College it was stated that ’Shaurya Chakra’
award was not covered under the rules and regulations and,
therefore, respondent no.1, being the son of an Exservice-
man, could be considered only in sub-category 4.
Respondents no.1 and 2 in SLP No.16065/91, the sons of
the serving defence personnel, filed another writ petition
before the High Court challenging the categorization of
defence personnel as unreasonable and contended that chil-
dren of serving defence personnel should have been preferred
over the children of Exserviceman.
The High Court allowed both the writ petitions and
directed the College to admit all the three petitioners. It
ordered that subcategory 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.
The petitioner in SLP No.16451/91, being the son of an
serviceman, was initially entitled to be considered under
sub-category 4 which by the order of the High Court was
converted into sub-category 5. He challenged the said con-
version of categories by yet another writ petition which was
dismissed by the High Court.
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 petitioner in the third writ peti-
tion which was dismissed by the High Court.
324
It was contended on behalf of Chandigarh Administration
and the College that the High Court exceeded its jurisdic-
tion 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.
On 15.11.1991 the three Special Leave Petitions were dis-
posed of.
Giving reasons in support of its order dated 15.11.1991
this Court,
HELD: 1. While acting under Article 226 of the Constitu-
tion, the High Court does not sit and/or act as an appellate
authority over the orders/actions of the subordinate author-
ities/tribunals. Its jurisdiction is supervisory in nature.
[pp. 335 H; 336 A]
One of the main objectives of this jurisdiction is to
keep the government and several other authorities and tribu-
nals within the bounds of their respective jurisdiction. The
High Court must ensure that while performing this function
it does not overstep the wellrecognised bounds of its own
jurisdiction. [p. 336 A]
2.1 In the instant case, the High Court should not have
indulged 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,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12
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 India. IP. 334 G-H1
2.2 If the High Court was satisfied that the rule was
discriminatory 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]
By directing that category 4 should be treated as cate-
gory 5 and conversely category 5 should be treated as cate-
gory 4, the High Court has prejudicially affected the rights
of candidates falling under category 4 without even
hearing.them, particularly when these categories were men-
tioned in the order of priority. [p. 335 A]
3. A rule making authority need not observe the rule of
hear-
325
ing, but the High Court exercising its judicial power
cannot dispense 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 were already admitted in the Col-
lege 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
College authorities ought to have acted with more alacrity
and approached this court earlier than they did. [p. 336 B-
D]
5. 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]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
Nos. 16066. 16065 & 16451 of 1991.
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 14606 of 1991 respectively.
Kapil Sibal, Ranjit Kumar, J.D. Jain, Mrs. Kawaljit
Kocher, Dr. Balram Gupta, Ms. Yasmin Tarapore, J. Lal Kai-
lash Vasdev, Ms Nandini Sawhney, R.K. Kapoor, A.A. Khan and
Anil Verma for the appearing parties.
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 Mili-
tary/Para-Military personnel. Orders in this behalf are
issued by the Administration in its memo dated 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 affili-
ated to Punjab University) reserved 15 seats in favour of
sons/daughters/spouses of Military/ParaMilitary Personnel.
The College published a prospectus for the session 1991-92.
It contains inter alia the rules governing the admission of
stu-
326
dents to the said college. So far as the reservation in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12
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.:
3 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:-
1. Sons/Daughters/Spouses of defence personnel
who are awardees of gallantry decorations of
Paramvir/Mahavir/Vir Chakra in person or
posthumously.
OR
Sons/daughters/spouses of defence personnel
and para-military personnel like CRPF, BSF
etc. who are killed or are total incapacitated
in action while in service and were wholly
dependent on them.
2. Sons/daughters/spouses of defence person-
nel 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 per-
sonnel and para-military personnel like
CRPF/BSF incapacitated while in service and
were wholly dependent on them;
4. Sons/daughters/spouses of exservicemen
(military and para-military personnel like
CRPF/BSF who are wholly dependent on them;
5. Sons/daughters/spouses of serving de-
fence personnel and paramilitary personnel
like CRPF/BSF who are wholly dependent on
them:
The candidates claiming admissions under the category 1
above are required to submit the photo-copy of citation for
the gallantry award, failing which the application will not
be considered in this category,
The candidates claiming admission under category I are
required to submit a certificate from the respective Head-
quarters regarding death/total incapacitation in action
while in service.
The candidates claiming admission under category 2 and
3 are required to submit a certificate from the respective
Headquarters regarding death/total incapacitation.while in
service.
327
The candidates claiming admission under category 4 are
required to 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.
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 the order of priority in the descending order.
There is no allocation of seats as between these five cate-
gories. It means that in the first instance, all the quali-
fied and eligible candidates falling in category 1 will be
given admission and if any seats are left unfilled, quali-
fied candidates failing in category 2 will be admitted. If
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12
there are any seats still left unfilled, qualified candi-
dates falling in category 3 will be given admission and so
on. In a given year, it may well happen that all the avail-
able seats reserved for children/spouses of defence person-
nel are taken away by the candidates in the 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 ’went unprovided altogether. It is stated that
all candidates obtaining the specified minimum marks in the
common entrance test were treated as qualified for being
considered for admission.
S.L.P. 16066/91: The first respondent in the S.L.P.
applied for admission to Punjab Engineering College under
this quota. He appeared in the common Entrance Test along
with other applicants. The College Authorities considered
his case placing him in category 4 since his father was an
Ex-serviceman. He could not, however, be given the admission
because the 15 seats reserved for children and spouses of
Military/ParaMilitary Personnel in this College were allo-
cated in the following manner:
a. There were three candidates falling in
category 1 (i.e., children of Defence Person-
nel who are awardees of gallantry decoration,
Paramvir Chakra/Mahavir Chakra, in person or
posthumously). All the three were given admis-
sion.
b. There were 5 candidates falling in catego-
ry 2. They were admitted.
328
c. Only one candidate falling in category 3
appeared and was given the seat;
d. There were 90 candidates failing in
category 4. But only 6 seats were available
(nine seats having been taken away by sub-
categories a to c). These six seats were
allotted on the basis of inter-se merit among
the candidates failing in this category. The
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 failing in category 5.
Finding that he has not been given admission in this Col-
lege, the 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 1 and not in category 4. He submitted that along
with his application for admission he had enclosed a copy of
the citation awarded by the President of India to his father
showing that his father Major Kuldip Singh Malik was awarded
Shaurya Chakra for displaying exemplary courage and leader-
ship in the course of his duties in the Mizo Hills. He
complained that two of the candidates admitted under catego-
ry 1 have received less marks than
he.
The High Court has allowed the Writ Petition on the
following reasoning:
"According to Regulation 695 of the Defence
Services Regulations relating to the Army,
issued by the Ministry of Defence, Government
of India, Shaurya Chakra is awardable for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12
gallantry and comes after Ashoka Chakra and
Kirti Chakra. Further, according to Regulation
717, in order of precedence, this award of
Shaurya Chakra is at number thirteen. that is
immediately below Vir Chakra and Param Vir
Chakra is at number two and Maha Vir Chakra is
at number seven. Despite all this, the re-
spondents, while considering the candidature
of the petitioner, did not grant him admission
to the Bachelor of Engineering Course in the
current session even though he 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 of the petitioner was deco-
rated with Shaurya Chakra award in
329
1969, but it is gallantry award and is not
strictly covered by 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 petitioner, 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
the petitioner is neither legally correct nor
just and fair. However, 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 admis-
sion already granted to them by the Chandigarh
Administration and the Punjab Engineering
College, Chandigarh, 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 deco-
rations, without disturbing the admission of
respondents Nos.3 and 4. In case no such seat
is available for the petitioner, the respond-
ents shall create a seat for the purpose
forthwith. This shall also be deemed to be a
direction to the Punjab University for accord-
ing necessary approval for the creation of the
additional seat. There shall be no order as to
costs."
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 respondent, was admitted in the college on 28th Octo-
ber, 1991. It is now stated by 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.
S.L.P. No. 16065/91
Respondents 1 and 2 in this S.L.P. also applied for
admission to Punjab Engineering College as children of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12
serving Defence Personnel. They too appeared for the common
Entrance Test along with other applicants. Since the parents
of the two respondents were serving Defence Personnel, their
case was considered under category 5, As stated herein
330
before, no seats were left for being allocated to candidates
falling in category 5. Respondents I and 2 were, therefore,
not given admission in this College whereupon they ap-
proached 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 Defence Personnel are placed in category 5, children
and spouses of Exserviceman are placed above them in catego-
ry 4. According to the respondents. children of serving
Defence Personnel must be preferred over the children of
Exservicemen. In a short order, the High Court allowed the
writ petition and directed’that category 5 should be treated
as category 4 and category 4 should be treated as category
5. The Court directed that 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 plead-
ings, we are of the considered view that sub-
categories No. 1, 2 and 3 deserve to be re-
tained at their appropriate present places. So
far as sub-categories No.4 and 5 i.e. relating
to the sons, daughters and spouses of the
exservice personnel ,as well as the sons,
daughters and spouses of service Defence
personnel are concerned, 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 sons, daugh-
ters and spouses of serving Defence personnel
are placed at sub-category No.4 i.e. above the
category of Exservicemen. This conclusion has
been arrived at by us after considering the
circumstances that the wards and spouses of
serving Defence personnel are at a disadvan-
tage in the absence of their guardians serving
at far off/distant places defending the coun-
try vis-a-vis who have retired from the mili-
tary 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 and 3 are concerned, there
shall not be any change. However, we direct
that so far as sub-category No.4 is concerned,
persons 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
tomorrow, shall not be made in accordance with
these directions. A copy of the order be
supplied Dasti also to the learned counsel for
the parties."
331
This order was made on 30th August, 1991 whereas the
present SLP was filed in this Court on 7th October, 1991.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12
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 1991 on 15.11.91.
S.L.P. No. 16451 of 1991
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 Court dismissing the writ
petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner (writ
petitioner) applied for admission to the Punjab Engineering
College for the year 1991-92 under category 4 being the son
of an Exserviceman. 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 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 Court to consider his case in category 4 itself
and grant him admission. His writ petition was dismissed by
the High Court on 9th October, 1991 under a short order
which reads thus:
"Admissions are being done as per the direc-
tions 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 peti-
tioner. The Writ petitions dismissed. A copy
of this order be given dasti."
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 in SLP’s 16066 and 16065 of 1991) contended
that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in grant-
ing the impugned directions. He submitted 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 have struck it down
and directed the rule-making authority to re-frame the
332
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 Court has completely
upset the course of admissions under this reserved quota and
has gravely affected the chances of candidates failing in
category 4 by down-grading them as category 5 without even
hearing them. These are 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 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
AWARDS.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12
717. Order of Precedence of Awards-
The order of precedence of various awards is
as follows:
Bharat Ratna
Param Vir Chakra
Ashoka Chakra
Padma Vibhushan
Padma Bhushan
Param Vishisht Seva Medal
Maha Vir Chakra
Kirti Chakra
Padma Shri
Sarvottam Jeevan Raksha Padak
Ati Vishisht Seva Medal
Vir Chakra
Shaurya Chakra
The President’s police and Fire Service Medal
for gallantry. Sena/Nao Sena/Vayu Sena Medal
Vishisht Seva Medal
The Police Medal for gallantry
Uttam Jeevan Raksha Padak Wound Medal
The General Service Medal 1947.
Samar Seva Star 1965
Poorvi Star
Paschimi Star
Raksha Medal 2965."
333
Counsel says that by its directions contained in the
two orders impugned herein, the High Court has exercised a
jurisdiction, which really did not belong 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.
On the other hand, the counsel for respondents (writ
petitioners in the High Court) in the first two SLPs. sup-
iported 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
Engineering College, at this juncture would cause them
irreparable prejudice. They submitted that the Chandigarh
Administration and the College authorities have been sleep-
ing over the matter until a contempt petition was filed and
that they moved this Court only after they were summoned in
the Contempt proceedings. They should be held dis-entitled
to any relief on account of laches, submitted the counsel.
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 16066 of
1991, arising from C.W.P. 12644/91.
The rule as framed by the Chandigarh Administration and
as published by the College in its prospectus in the year
1991-92 placed in category I children and spouses 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 discriminatory 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 admissiions accordingly. High Court however did
not choose to do so. It merely directed that since Shaurya
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12
Chakra is immediately below Vir Chakra in the order of
precedence and since respondents 3 and 4 in the writ peti-
tion admitted 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 is assigned for granting the said
direction. All that it says is that since Shaurya Chakra is
also awardable for gallantry and is placed imme-
334
diately below Vir Chakra, the writ petitioner should be
granted admission. If really the High Court was of the
opinion that Shaurya Chakra is equivalent to Vir Chakra and
should be treated on the same par as Vir 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 children/spouses of Ashok Chakra, Kirti
Chakra & Shaurya Chakra awardees did not fall under category
1 nor under categories 2 or 3. They would fail under catego-
ry 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 petitioner (first respond-
ent in SLP 16066 of 1991) but who did not claim a seat under
category 1 nor were considered as such. They may not have
stated the fact of their parent/spouse being a Ashok
chakra/Kirli 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 consid-
ered. By saying this we do not mean to say that the Rule is
bad. We do not mean to say so at all. There may be good
reasons for the Rule as published - 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 awar-
dees (including Ashok, Kirti and Shaurya Chakra) should be
placed in category 1, it should have said so, struck down
the category-and, may be, directed reframing of rule and
admissions made on that basis.
Coming to SLP 16065 of 1991, the position appears to
been even 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 say that if
the High Court thought that this categorisation was discrim-
inatory and bad it ought to have struck down the categorisa-
tion 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/he opinion they would have
formed on a review of the situation. We must make it clear
again that we 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 ’switch-
ing’ the categories, - and that too without giving any
reasons thereafter. Thereby. it has practicably assumed the
rule of rulemaking 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 India. Now, let us notice the implications
and consequences of the said ’switching’.
335
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12
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 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 herein-
before. A rulemaking authority need not observe the rule of
hearing, but the High Court exercising its judicial power
cannot dispense with the requirement and 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 category 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 pub-
lished by the 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 re-
call.
Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the
High Court to issue to any person or authority (including
the government) directions, orders or writs including writs
in the nature of Habeas Corpus, mandamus, Prohibition, quo
warrants and certiorari, or any of them for the enforcement
of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other
purpose.
Though the Article itself does not contain any restric-
tive words, the Courts have, ever the years, evolved certain
self-constraints though, we 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] 1 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 technicalities
of these writs in English law, nor feel op-
pressed by any difference or change of opin-
ion, 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 appropriate manner, so long as
we keep to the broad and fundamental princi-
ples that regulate the exercise of jurisdic-
tion in the matter of granting such writ in
English law."
While this is not the place to delve into or detail the
self-constraints to be observed by the Courts while exercis-
ing the jurisdiction under Article 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
an Appellate Authority over the orders/actions of the Subor-
dinate Authori-
336
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 jurisdiction. The High
Court must ensure that while performing this function it
does not overstep the well-recognized bounds of its own
jurisdiction.
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 respondents-writ-petition-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12
ers (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, where-
upon they have given 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 admis-
sion in this college at this stage would result in grave and
irreparable prejudice to them. We think that the Administra-
tion and College authorities ought to have acted with more
alacrity and approached this Court earlier than they 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. 12644/91 and 12485/91.
Now coming to SLP 16451 of 1991, the situation is this:
By virtue 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 waiting list. The petitioner in SLP 16451
of 1991 says that he is one such 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
seats. The Chandigarh Administration shall pass the neces-
sary orders in this behalf. Action in terms of this direc-
tion shall be taken forthwith by the Chandigarh Administra-
tion and the college authorities.
Before we part with this case we wish to make an obser-
vation. In matters of this nature where the High court
directs students to be admitted in Educational Institutions.
it would be advisable if the High Court stays
337
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.
SLPs disposed of accordingly.
R.P. Petitions
disposed of.
338