Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY PATIALA TECHN
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/1996
BENCH:
KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.15577 OF 1996
(arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10224 of 1995)
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 507 OF 1995
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4101 OF 1995
J U D G M E N T
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. :
Special leave granted in S.L.Ps. (C) Nos. 10132 of 1995
and 10224 of 1995.
These appeals and the writ petition raise common
questions relating to reservation of seats for wards of
employees in the matter of admission to institutions
imparting technical education. The appeals are directed
against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
dated September 2, 1994. We will first take up the appeals.
Civil Appeal No. 4101 OF 1995 relates to the
Technological Institute of Textile and Science at Bhiwani in
the State of Haryana (for short ‘the T.I.T. & S.’). The
T.I.T. & S. is a society registered under the West Bengal
Societies Registration Act, 1961. It is running a technical
institute which imparts education/training in Textile
Technology, Textile Chemistry, Computer Science and
Management Science leading to the award of B. Tech/M.
Tech./M.M.S. Degrees. The T.I.T. & S. is affiliated to the
Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred
to as‘the respondent-University’). The T.I.T. & S. also owns
and runs a textile mill under the same roof employing about
1500 workers wherein the students receive practical training
under the actual mill working conditions. The normal intake
in the B. Tech. Course of the T.I.T. & S. is 90 students
each year and admission to these 90 seats is made according
to merit on the basis of a competitive entrance test
conducted by the respondent-University. In addition to the
aforesaid 90 seats, the T.I.T. & S. has provided four
additional seats for the wards of the employees of the
appellant-Institute. These seats are available to the wards
of only those employees who have put in minimum 10 years
service in the T.I.T. & S. Two of these four seats are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
available in Computer Science and the other two in Textiles
Out of these four seats two seats are earmarked for college
staff and two seats for mill/school staff. As per the rules
prescribed for admission effective since academic session
1991-92, in order to be eligible for admission the candidate
is required to have at least 60% marks in the aggregate of
three subjects (Physics, Chemistry and Maths) at 10+2
examination and admission is to be made on the basis of
merit to be earned according to the marks secured in the
Entrance Examination conducted by the respondent-University.
Seats earmarked for college and mill/school staff can be
inter-changed in case there is no eligible candidate in one
particular group and if a seat allotted for Computer Course
is not desired by the allottee, he shall be offered a seat
in the Textile Course and, if any seat remains vacant, the
requirement of service period may be relaxed with prior
approval of the Chairman of the Society. Normally this
facility for wards of the staff is available for one seat
for one employee’s child but in no case it can be extended
to more than two children. The wards of the employees who
secure admission on their own merit or on reserved seats of
wards are eligible for freeship. The T.I.T. & S. does not
receive any financial did either from the State Government
or the Central Government or the respondent-University or
any other local authority. By letter dated July 15, 1993,
the respondent-University conveyed its decision not to
permit the T.I.T. & S. to continue with the reservation of
seats for the wards of the staff of the T.I.T. & S. in the
B. Tech Course in view of the judgment of this Court in J.P.
Unni Krishnan and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
others, 1993 (1) SCC 645, and the T.I.T. & S. was directed
not to make any admission under this category. Feeling
aggrieved by the said order of the respondent-University,
the T.I.T. & S. filed a Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 9296 of
1993) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which has been
dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court dated
September 2, 1994.
Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.Ps. Nos. 10132 of 1995
and 10224 of 1995 relate to the Thapar Institute of
Engineering & Technology, Patiala (for short ‘the T.I.E.T.’)
and the Thapar Polytechnic which have been established and
are being run by the Patiala Technical Education Trust. As
per declaration of the Central Government dated December 30,
1985 under Section 3 of the university Grants Commission
Act, 1956, the T.I.E.T. is deemed to be a university for the
purpose of the said Act. The T.I.E.T. imparts education at
the Graduate and Post-Graduate level. At the under-graduate
level it awards degree in Bachelor of Engineering and at the
post-graduate level it awards the degree in Master of
Engineering. In the T.I.E.T. there are 180 seats in various
courses for award of degree in Bachelor of Engineering 2%
seats are reserved for the children of employees of the
T.I.E.T. sand the Patiala Technical Education Trust and 5%
seats are reserved for the children of employees of Thapar
Group of Companies. The candidates for these seats are to be
sponsored by the Patiala Technical Education trust. The
T.I.E.T. receives maintenance grants for running expenses
from the Government of Punjab. The Thapar Polytechnic
conducts three year courses. Admission to these courses is
made on the basis of merit to be determined in Joint
Competitive Entrance Test conducted by the Punjab Government
through Punjab School Education Board. Provision is,
however, made for reservation of 2% seats for wards of
employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Thapar Polytechnic to be
nominated by the Patiala Technical Education Trust. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
nomination is made on the basis of relative merits of
candidates but the nominated candidates are not required to
appear in the Common Entrance Test. The Polytechnic receives
grant for running expenses from the State Government. The
Government of Punjab, by its letter dated September 16, 1991
addressed to the Director of Technical Education and
Industrial Training, Punjab, communicated that in view of
the pronouncement of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
that reservations in admission are discriminatory and
unconstitutional, reservation in admission for wards of
employees working in the Department/Institutions cannot be
justified on the plea that it is done as a measure of
welfare and that the Government had decided that with effect
from the academic session 1991-92 onwards there shall be no
reservation in admissions for wards of employees of
Department/Institutions and that such reservations, wherever
stipulated in (a) Diploma level courses in
Government/Private aided/Private unaided Institutions
affiliated with the State Board of Technical Education, and
(b) Certificate level courses in all such like Institutions
under the purview of the Industrial Training wing of the
said Department, shall stand concelled with immediate
effect. As regards Degree level courses in such like
Institutions, falling within the purview of the said
Department and affiliated with State Board of Technical
Education, it was directed that since admission had already
been finalised for the academic session 1991-92, the
decision would be applicable in their case with effect from
the next academic year, i.e., 1992-93. The T.I.E.T. filed a
Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 1745 of 1992) in the High
Court and another Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 1744 of
1992) was filed by the Patiala Technical Education Trust
assailing the said order of the Government of Punjab dated
September 16, 1991. Both these Writ Petitions have been
dismissed by the impugned judgment of the High Court dated
September 2, 1994.
The High Court has held that in view of the decision of
this Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan & Ors. (supra) no quota can
be reserved for the management or for any family, caste or
community which may have established the college. The High
Court has rejected the contention that J.P. Unni Krishnan
(supra) was not applicable. The High Court has also placed
reliance on the decisions of this Court State of Gujarat v.
Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust & Ors., 1994 (3) SCC
552, and Chairman/Directed, Combined Entrance Examination
(CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das & Ors., 1992 (3) SCC 543, and has
held that the orders impugned in the writ petitions do not
suffer from any illegality or unconstitutionality.
In the context of admission to an institution imparting
higher education in professional courses a question has
often arisen whether the State can make provision giving
preferential treatment to candidates seeking admission to
the institution. In dealing with this question the approach
of this Court has been that such preferential treatment must
be consistent with the mandate of Article 14 of the
Constitution guaranting equality of opportunity and that
though reasonable classification is permissible, such
classification must have a reasonable nexus with object of
the rules providing such admission, namely, to select the
most meritorious amongst the candidates to have advantage of
such education. Applying this test this Court has struck
down, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,
provision for allotment of seats in medical college in the
State amongst the various districts in the State in the
ratio of the population of each district to the total
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
population of the State. [See ; Minor P. Rajendran v. State
of Madras & Ors., 1968 (2) SCR 786]. Similar provision for
distribution of seats on unit basis was also struck down.
[See : A. Peeriakaruppan, Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu &
Ors., 1971 (2) SCR 430]. University wise distribution of
seats has, however, been upheld on the ground that the
universities are set up for satisfying the educational needs
of different areas where they are set up and those attached
to such universities have their ambitions to have training
in specialised subjects like medicine satisfied through
colleges attached to their own universities. [See : D.N.
Chanchala v. State of Mysore & Ors., Etc., 1971 Supp. SCR
608]. It has been laid down that university wise
preferential treatment may be consistent with the rule of
equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an
imbalance or handicap and permit equality in the larger
sense. [See : Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
1980 (2) SCR 831, at p. 849]
The Court has insisted that while nominating candidates
for admission the concerned authority should follow the
criterion of merit and has viewed with disfavour the
conferment of discretion in this regard on the founder of
the institution or the person/persons in management of the
institution. In Suman Gupta & Ors., Etc. v. State of J & K &
Ors., 1983 (3) SCR 985, there was an arrangement among some
of the States under which a certain percentage of the seats
in Medical Colleges was reserved for candidates from other
States on a reciprocal basis. The nominations made by the
State Governments against these seats were challenged on the
ground that the same were made by the State Governments in
their absolute and arbitrary discretion. It was held that
the principle adopted by the State Governments of nominating
candidates in their absolute and unfettered choice to seats
in medical colleges outside the State was invalid being
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court
directed the Medical Council of India to formulate a proper
constitutional basis for determining the selection of
candidates for nomination to seats in Medical Colleges
outside the State and that until a policy is so formulated
and concrete criteria are embodied in the procedure
selected, the nominations shall be made by selecting
candidates strictly on the basis of merit, the candidate
nominated being those, in order of merit, immediately below
the candidates selected for admission to the Medical
Colleges of the home States. Similarly, in K. Sujatha v.
Marathawada University & Ors., 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 155,
admission to 20% of the seats was at the discretion of the
management of the Medical College. It was argued that these
seats were not the open merit seats. Rejecting the said
contention, it was held that there cannot be different
eligibility rules for candidates admitted from different
sources.
In J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) a Constitution Bench of
this Court was dealing with admission to private
unaided/aided recognised/affiliated educational institutions
conducting professional courses such as medical, engineering
courses etc. and charging of the capitation fees by the
management of the institution for the purpose of admission.
As regards aided institutions it was held that they have to
abide by the rules and regulations as may be framed by the
Government and/or recognising/affiliating authorities in the
matter of recruitment of teachers and staff, their
conditions of service, syllabus, standard of teaching and so
on and, in particular, in the matter of admission of
students, they have to follow the rule of merit and merit
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
alone subject to any reservation made under Article 15 and
they shall not be entitled to charge any fees higher than
what is charged in Governmental institutions for similar
courses [p. 749]. As regards unaided institutions which are
recognised/affiliated it was held that it may not be
insisted that the private educational institution shall
charge only that fee as is charged for similar courses in
governmental institutions and that private educational
institutions are entitled to charge a higher fee not
exceeding the ceiling fixed in that behalf since they have
to meet the cost of imparting education on their own
resources and the main source apart from
donations/charities, if any, can only be the fees collected
from the students. At the same time, it was laid down :-
"No private educational institution
can survive or subsist without
recognition and/or affiliation. The
bodies which grant recognition
and/or affiliation are the
authorities of the State. In such a
situation, it is obligatory - in
the interest of general public -
upon the authority granting
recognition or affiliation to
insist upon such conditions as are
appropriate to ensure not only
education of requisite standard but
also fairness and equal treatment
in the matter of admission of
student. Since the
recognizing/affiliating authority
is the State, it is under an
obligation to impose such
conditions as part of its duty
enjoined upon if by Article 14 of
the Constitution. It cannot allow
itself or its power and privilege
to be used unfairly. The incidents
attaching to the main activity
attach to supplemental activity as
well. Affiliation/recognition is
not there for anybody to get it
gratis or unconditionally. In our
opinion, no Government, authority
or University is justified or is
entitled to grant
recognition/affiliation without
imposing such conditions. Doing so
would amount to abdicating its
obligations enjoined upon it by
Part III; its activity is bound to
be characterised as
unconstitutional and illegal. To
reiterate, what applies to the main
activity applies equally to
supplemental activity. The State
cannot claim immunity from the
obligations arising from Articles
14 and 15. If so, it cannot confer
such immunity upon its affiliates."
[p. 755]
In J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) this Court has evolved a
Scheme which every authority granting
recognition/affiliation shall impose upon the institutions
seeking such recognition/affiliation. It has been observed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
that the idea behind the Scheme is to eliminate discretion
in the management altogether in the matter of admission
because it is the discretion in the matter of admission that
is at the root of the several ills complained of. The Scheme
is in the nature of guidelines which the appropriate
Governments and recognising and affiliating authorities are
required to impose and implement in addition to such other
conditions and stipulations as they may think appropriate as
conditions for grant of permission, grant of recognition or
grant of affiliation, as the case may be. The Scheme
postulates that at least 50% of the seats in every
professional college shall be filled by the nominees of ht
Government or University, as the case may be, and the
students for these seats shall be selected on the basis of
merit determined on the basis of a common entrance
examination where it is held or in the absence of an
entrance examination, by such criteria as may be determined
by the competent authority or the appropriate authority, as
the case may be. The remaining 50% seats shall be filled by
those candidates who are prepared to pay the fee prescribed
therefor and who have complied with the instructions
regarding deposit and furnishing the case security/Bank
guarantee for the balance of the amount. As regards ‘payment
seats’ it has been prescribed :-
"The allotment of students against
payment seats shall also be done on
the basis of inter se merit
determined on the same basis as in
the case of free seats. There shall
be no quota reserved for the
management or for any family, caste
or community which may have
established such college."
[p. 758]
The aforesaid requirement in the Scheme evolved by this
Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) that the admission to
professional colleges shall be made on the basis of merit
gives effect to the law laid down by this Court that
admission in professional colleges must be made on the basis
of merit so as to secure the best possible talent.
In the State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah
Charitable Trust & Ors. (supra), the M.P. Shah Medical
College was established in Jamnagar in 1954 by the then
State of Saurashtra and Shri M.P. Shah had donated Rs. 15
lakhs for establishing the college. Initially the College
had 60 seats and as per the arrangement between Shri M.P.
Shah and the then Chief minister of the State, Shri Shah was
entitled to nominate students for admission to the extent of
10% of the total strength admitted every year and this
arrangement was to continue n permanent basis. In course of
time, the annual intake of students in the college rose to
175 and in 1964 the Government of Gujarat decided to reserve
12 seats for nominees of the donor and in the meanwhile Shri
Shah had designated the M.P. Shah Charitable Trust as his
nominee. After the decision in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra),
the Government of Gujarat resolved to discontinue the 12
donor seats in the M.P. Shah Medical College. The Trust
filed a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court challenging
the validity of the said resolution of the Government of
Gujarat which was allowed. The said decision of the High
Court was reversed by this Court and the resolution of the
Government of Gujarat was upheld. It was observed :-
"Now, where an individual or an
organisation which establishes and
runs a medical college (recognised
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
by State or affiliated to a
university) is not entitled,
according to Unnikrishnan to admit
students on its own, or in its
discretion, it is inconceivable
that a person or a body which has
assisted in setting up of a
government medical college would be
permitted to have a quota of its
own to which it can nominate
students of its own choice. There
is no room for such an arrangement
in law."
[. 566]
Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned senior counsel appearing
for the T.I.T. & S. in Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995, has
urged that it is permissible to make reservation for the
wards of the employees in the institution for the purpose of
admission to the institution since the T.I.T. & S. is an
unaided institution. He has placed reliance on the following
observations of this Court in Chitra Ghosh & Another
v. Union of India and Others, 1970 (1) SCR 413, :-
"It i the Central Government which
bears the financial burden of
running the medical college. It is
for it to lay down the criteria for
eligibility. From the very nature
of things it is not possible to
throw the admission open to
students from all the country. The
Government cannot be denied the
right to decide from what sources
the admission will be made. That
essentiality is a question of
policy and depends inter alia on an
overall assessment and survey of
the requirements of residents of
particular territories and other
categories of persons for whom it
is essential to provide facilities
for medical education. If the
sources are properly classified
whether on territorial,
geographical or other reasonable
basis it is not for the courts to
interfere with the manner and
method of making the
classification."
[pp. 418, 419]
The said contention of the learned counsel and his
reliance on the observations in Chitra Ghosh (supra) proceed
on a misapprehension about the correct position. In the
cases in hand, we are not required to consider the validity
of grant of preferential treatment to the wards of employees
in the institution in the matter of admission by the State,
as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. It is a
converse case. Here the State, viz., The Maharashi Dayanand
University, has directed the T.I.T. & S. not to give such
preferential treatment and the validity of the said
direction is being challenged by the institution. In giving
the impugned direction the respondent-University is only
giving effect to the law laid down by this Court in J.P.
Unni Krishnan (supra) regarding admission to unaided
educational institutions. Since the T.I.T. & S. is
affiliated with it the respondent-University as the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
affiliating authority is bound to ensure that in the matter
of admission to the institution there is no violation of the
right to equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 14
of the Constitution.
In Chitra Ghosh (supra) this Court was dealing with
validity of reservation of certain number of seats in a
medical college run by the Central Government for candidates
falling in specified categories and admission was to be made
against those seats on the basis of nomination by the
Central Government. The admission of the students on the
basis of nomination by the Central Government was challenged
on the ground that these students had obtained less
percentage of marks than the appellants in that case and
reliance was placed on the judgment of the Full Bench of the
Patna High Court in Umesh Ch. Sinha v. V.N. Singh,
Principal, P.M.C. & Hospital & Ors., ILR 46 Patna 616, where
preferential treatment had been given to the employees of
the Patna University in the matter of admission to the Patna
Medical College and the High Court had held that there was
no reasonable nexus between the principle governing
admission to the college on the one hand and the precunniary
difficulties or the meritorious services rendered by the
employees of the Patna University on the other and that
preferential treatment to the children of these employees
would amount to favouritism and patronage. Distinguishing
the said decision of the Patna High Court, this Court has
said :-
"There is no question of any
preferential treatment being
accorded to any particular category
or class of persons desirous of
receiving medical education in the
present case. The mere fact that
the Central Government has to make
the nominations with regard to the
reserved seats cannot be considered
to be preferential treatment of any
kind. As the candidates for the
reserved seats have to be drawn
from different sources it would be
difficult to have uniformity in the
matter of selection from amongst
them. The High Court was right in
saying that the standards of the
examinations passed by them, the
subjects studied by them and the
educational back-ground of each of
them would be different and
divergent and therefore the Central
Government was the appropriate
authority which could make a proper
selection out of those categories.
Moreover, this is being done with
the tacit approval and consent of
the Medical Course Admission
Committee."
[pp. 419, 420]
The question whether reservation in the matter of
admission is permissible forwards of employees of the
institution was considered by this Court in
Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990
v. Osiris Das & Ors. (supra). It relates to the G.B. Pant
University, which is aided and financed by the Government of
U.P. The Government of U.P. had issued a notification
directing that admission of the students to the various
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
Engineering Institutions in the State shall be made in order
of merit and through a Combined Entrance Examination to be
conducted by an Admission Committee. The G.B. Pant
University made provision for reserving 5% seats over and
above the sanctioned strength of seats for sons and wards of
the employees of the University for admission to the B. Tech
course. The State Government insisted that any such
reservation was not justified and would be contrary to
constitutional provisions. The University accepted the said
directions issued by the State Government and decided to do
away with the reservation. In writ petitions filed by the
students who failed to qualify for admission in the general
category of candidates and were claiming admission against
the reserved quota, interim orders were passed by the
Allahabad High Court for giving provisional admission.
Setting aside the said orders of the High Court, this Court
has held :-
"There is no dispute that the G.B.
Pant University is aided and
financed by the State Government
and the University is an
instrumentality of the State. Any
instrumentality of the State cannot
give preferential treatment to a
class of persons without there
being any justification for the
same. The reservation of seats for
admission to the B. Tech course in
favour of the sons and wards of the
employees of the University is
violative of the doctrine of
equality enshrined under Article 14
of the Constitution. There is no
rational for the reservation of the
seats in favour of the sons and
wards of the employees of the
University nor any such reservation
has any rational nexus with the
object which is sought to be
achieved by the University. The
State Government, in our opinion,
rightly insisted on the University
to do away with the reservations in
favour of the sons and wards of the
employees."
[pp. 545, 546]
In so far as Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995 is
concerned, the letter of respondent-University dated January
15, 1993 directing the T.I.T. & S. not to continue with the
reservation of seats for wards of the staff of the T.I.T. &
S. in the B. Tech. Court was taken in pursuance of the
decision of this Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) and is
in consonance with the law laid down in Chairman/Director,
Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das &
Ors. (supra) since the T.I.T. & S. is affiliated to the
respondent-University. It is no doubt true that the four
additional seats for which reservation was made for the
wards of the college and mill/school staff of the T.I.T. &
S. are in addition to 90 seats and admission is made on the
basis of marks obtained in the Entrance Examination
conducted by the respondent-University. But for the purpose
of admission to these four seats a separate merit list is
drawn in respect of the candidates who are eligible for
these seats and admission is not made according to merit as
reflected in the common merit list. Such reservation in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
favour of wards of the college and mill/school staff of the
T.I.T. & S. does not satisfy the test of admission being
given strictly on the basis of merit as laid down by this
Court and has been rightly held to be impressible by the
High Court. The said appeal is, therefore, liable to be
dismissed.
In Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10132
of 1995 there was reservation to the extent of 2% of seats
for wards of the employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala
Technical Education Trust and there was reservation to the
extent of 5% of seats for wards of the employees of the
Thapar group of industries. In Civil Appeal arising out of
S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10224 of 1995, there was reservation to
the extent of 2% of seats for wards of employees in the
Thapar Polytechnic and the patiala Technical Education
Trust. The T.I.E.T. and the Thapar Polytechnic receive
maintenance grants from the Government of Punjab and are
Government aided educational institutions. It is no doubt
true that the T.I.E.T. has been declared to be a "deemed
university" by the Central Government under the provisions
of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. But this
downs not mean that it is permissible for the T.I.E.T. to
depart from the principle laid down by this Court that
admission should be made strictly on the basis of merit. The
position of the T.I.E.T., a deemed University, cannot be
better than that of the G.B. Pant University which is a full
fledged University and in view of the decision of this Court
in Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE)
1990 v. Osiris Das & Ors. (supra) it must be held that it
was not permissible for the T.I.E.T. to reserve 2% of the
seats for the wards of the employees of the T.I.E.T. and the
Patiala Technical Education Trust and 5% of seats for the
children of employees in the Thapar group of industries. The
reservation of 2% of seats in the Thapar Polytechnic for
wards of employees in the Thapar Polytechnic and the Patiala
Technical Education Trust was also impressible in view of
the law laid down by this Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan
(supra) and Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination
(CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das & Ors. (supra). The directions
contained in letter of the Government of Punjab dated
September 16, 1991, being in consonance with the said
decisions, have been rightly upheld by the High Court and
both the appeals are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
Writ Petition No. 507 of 1995 has been jointly filed by
the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala Technical Education Trust under
Article 32 of the Constitution for quashing Memo dated June
6, 1995 addressed by the Director, Technical Education and
Industrial Training, Punjab (Technical Education Wing) to
the Co-ordinator, Punjabi University, Punjab and a copy is
endorsed to the Director of the T.I.E.T. In the said Memo
dated June 6, 1995, issued by the Director of Technical
Education and Industrial Training, Punjab, to the Punjabi
University, Patiala, it is stated that reservation proposed
by the T.I.E.T. in respect of 10 seats under paragraph 3(d)
of the Brochure-cum-Application form for admission on CET -
1995 providing for 10 seats for Thapar Organisation is not
legally sustainable and should not be reflected in the
Admission Brochure and reference has been made to the
judgment in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra). The said Memo is
challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the
T.I.E.T. is a "deemed university" under the University
Grants Commission Act and that the decision in J.P. Unni
Krishnan (supra) has no application to university employees.
While dealing with Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.
(Civil) No. 10132 of 1995, we have considered this
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
submission and have held that the such reservation of seats
in the T.I.E.T. is not permissible. For the same reasons, it
must be held that the direction contained in the Memo dated
June 6, 1995 does not suffer from any infirmity and the Writ
Petition is also liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Civil Appeals as well as the Writ
Petition are dismissed. But in the circumstances, there is
no order as to costs.