ORDER
M.M. Punchhi, J.
1. The petitioner is a member of scheduled castes. He had over 50 per cent marks in the qualifying examination in the 10 + 2 system in order to stake claim to admission in an Engineering College/Institute in the State of Punjab. Statedly there are four institutions which cater to the needs of such aspirants as the petitioner. The Punjab University to whom these colleges are affiliated and institutions attached holds a combined entrance test for determining the merit of candidates seeking admission coming from various sources of qualifying examinations having regard to their equivalancy.
2. The petitioner sat in the combined entrance test and obtained 7 1/2 per cent marks approximately. The Government instructions in that regard being Annexure P1 specifically state that for 20 per cent reservation of seats meant for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes a candidate, in order to obtain admission relatively on merit, must secure 10 per cent marks in the combined entrance test. Likewise, the general category candidates must obtain 15 per cent marks. Now if the requisite standard of 10 per cent marks and above are not secured by Scheduled Caste candidates within their 20 per cent reservation, the Colleges, and in particular the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, respondent No. 2 opt for releasing the seats meant for Scheduled Castes in favour of general category candidates in terms of the Govt. instructions Annexure P1. The petitioner, was denied admission by the Institute. As stated at the Bar, he had also applied to the Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana,but his application was not considered by the said Institution being incomplete. This has given rise to this petition.
3. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance says that the combined entrance test is only meant to determine the eligibility and once that eligibility is determined one has to fall back on the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. It has been pressed into service that the qualifying marks obtained by the petitioner are fairly high. We are not impressed by this argument, for it appears to be lopsided. It defies imagination that if qualifying marks were the determining factor, what was the use of the combined entrance test. The combined entrance test, as it appears to us, is to marshal varied academic standards prevailing in Boards and other Institution which provide the raw material to be inducted in the Engineering Colleges. If Mr. Sibal's argument has to be accepted, the very purpose of the combined entrance test would be defeated. We reject this argument outright.
4. The second argument raised is that in terms of the Government instructions, Annexure Pl, the petitioner was entitled to admission. The term relied on is in the following words: --
'It is understood that there is minimum qualifying standard for admission to various institutions. Students-belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes should be eligible for admission to the reserved seats if they attain this minimum standards without any reference in the gap between their marks and the marks of the last person admitted to the open seats.'
This term is interpreted by Mr. Sibal to say that it applies to qualifying marks and it has relevancy for the purpose. We do not appreciate this stand as well. This term prescribing minimum qualifying standard for admission pertains to the standards as obtained by the combined entrance test and not to the standard as in the qualifying marks, making one eligible to sit in a combined entrance test. This argument also does not prevail and is hereby rejected.
5. The third argument raised is that the petitioner despite his having attained 7 1/2 per cent marks in the combined entrance test was entitled to admission as it would otherwise violate the policy of reservation. The effort in this regard by judicial precedents as also Government policy which have come to be tested and questioned in recent times, has been to interlace academic standard and demand of reservation. But in no case has the standard been allowed to go down from a particular limit. Here in the Government policy 5 per cent is the tolerable limit by which the standard for the Scheduled Castes candidates has been allowed to come down. Under the Government policy, further down-grading is not permitted. Result oriented, as the Engineering Colleges are, the standards cannot be so down-graded so as to lower than below tolerable limits. So this argument does not appeal to us also. All these factors have been taken into consideration while issuing the prospectus of the Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala, where the petitioner sought admission. In our view, he was rightly declined admission. In the return it has been asserted that 27 candidates above the petitioner on merit in the combined entrance test have likewise been refused admission.
For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this petition in limine.
6. Petition dismissed.