Amandeep Rajan Vs. the State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1054711
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-16-2013
AppellantAmandeep Rajan
RespondentThe State of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
cwp no.16115 of 2012 -1- in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh cwp no.16115 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision:16. 1.2013 amandeep rajan ....petitioner versus the state of punjab and others ....respondents coram: hon'ble mr.justice surya kant hon'ble mr.justice r.p.nagrath present: mr.pc arora, advocate for the petitioner. mr.manot bajaj, addl. ag, punjab. mr.ashish rawal, advocate for respondent no.3. surya kant, j. (oral) the petitioner seeks quashing of the relevant clause contained in the eligibility criteria for punjab ayurvedic elementary test (paet) prescribed by the respondents vide notification dated 12.5.2011 (annexure p-2) for admission to bams degree course, according to which a candidate is required to possess requisite marks in the subjects of biology, physics and chemistry at both levels i.e.10+1 and 10+2 examinations. the petitioner got admission in s. teja singh kandhari public school, in 10+1 but failed to score even 33% marks in the cwp no.16115 of 2012 -2- compulsory subjects of physics and chemistry. the petitioner, thus, could not have been promoted to 10+2 contrary to the eligibility criteria prescribed in regulation 38 (iv) of the c.b.s.e.regulations. yet the above-mentioned school granted admission to the petitioner in 10+2, however, he failed in the examination conducted by the cbse in the year 2011. he thereafter, got admission in s.d.s.e.senior secondary school, patiala, which is affiliated to punjab school education board (p.s.e.b.) and the said school permitted him to appear in 10+2 examination conducted by the board, which the petitioner qualified. he thereafter, appeared in the punjab ayurvedic elementary test and as per his merit position he was entitled to admission in bams degree course. his candidature, however, has been rejected by the respondents for want of eligibility as the petitioner did not obtain requisite marks in the subjects of physics and chemistry at 10+1 level. the petitioner not challenges the very legality of the condition, referred to above. we have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record. in our considered view, there is no inbuilt illegality or unreasonableness in the condition requiring consistent academic performance by a candidate at 10+1 as well as 10+2 level. the eligibility conditions have been applied uniformly to all the candidates for a better academic and professional standards and it being essentially a policy matter in the academic field, it falls within the domain of the subject experts and calls with no interference by this court. that apart, the petitioner could not have been promoted to 10+2 under the cbse cwp no.16115 of 2012 -3- regulations, hence, the fact that he managed to secure admission or appeared in 10+2 examination would not ensure him with undue advantage over the eligible candidates. further, the respondents have rightly contended that the petitioner while applying for the test made a calculated attempt to conceal the material information. dismissed. ( surya kant ) judge january 16, 2013 ( r.p.nagrath ) rishu judge
Judgment:

CWP No.16115 of 2012 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16115 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:

16. 1.2013 Amandeep Rajan ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH PRESENT: Mr.PC Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Manot Bajaj, Addl.

AG, Punjab.

Mr.Ashish Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

SURYA KANT, J.

(ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the relevant clause contained in the eligibility criteria for Punjab Ayurvedic Elementary Test (PAET) prescribed by the respondents vide notification dated 12.5.2011 (Annexure P-2) for admission to BAMS Degree Course, according to which a candidate is required to possess requisite marks in the subjects of Biology, Physics and Chemistry at both levels i.e.10+1 and 10+2 examinations.

The petitioner got admission in S.

Teja Singh Kandhari Public School, in 10+1 but failed to score even 33% marks in the CWP No.16115 of 2012 -2- compulsory subjects of Physics and Chemistry.

The petitioner, thus, could not have been promoted to 10+2 contrary to the eligibility criteria prescribed in Regulation 38 (iv) of the C.B.S.E.Regulations.

Yet the above-mentioned school granted admission to the petitioner in 10+2, however, he failed in the examination conducted by the CBSE in the year 2011.

He thereafter, got admission in S.D.S.E.Senior Secondary School, Patiala, which is affiliated to Punjab School Education Board (P.S.E.B.) and the said school permitted him to appear in 10+2 examination conducted by the Board, which the petitioner qualified.

He thereafter, appeared in the Punjab Ayurvedic Elementary Test and as per his merit position he was entitled to admission in BAMS Degree Course.

His candidature, however, has been rejected by the respondents for want of eligibility as the petitioner did not obtain requisite marks in the subjects of Physics and Chemistry at 10+1 level.

The petitioner not challenges the very legality of the condition, referred to above.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record.

In our considered view, there is no inbuilt illegality or unreasonableness in the condition requiring consistent academic performance by a candidate at 10+1 as well as 10+2 level.

The eligibility conditions have been applied uniformly to all the candidates for a better academic and professional standards and it being essentially a policy matter in the academic field, it falls within the domain of the subject experts and calls with no interference by this Court.

That apart, the petitioner could not have been promoted to 10+2 under the CBSE CWP No.16115 of 2012 -3- Regulations, hence, the fact that he managed to secure admission or appeared in 10+2 examination would not ensure him with undue advantage over the eligible candidates.

Further, the respondents have rightly contended that the petitioner while applying for the test made a calculated attempt to conceal the material information.

Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE January 16, 2013 ( R.P.NAGRATH ) rishu JUDGE