N.K.SUD, J. - (1.) This order will dispose of two writ petitions Nos. 6914 of 2000 and 16765 of 1999 involving common questions of law and facts. The petitioners in these writ petitions are students of various Engineering Colleges of Punjab who had been admitted to second year/3rd semester of Bachelor of Engg./Technology course under the Lateral Entry Engineering Test 1999 (for short "LEET-99") conducted by the Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar (for short "the University"), on 18-7-1999. They are aggrieved by the notice issued by the University in the Tribune dated 12-8-1999 notifying that as per the fee structure as revised by the Punjab Government they were required to pay the same fee and other charges as was being charged from the candidates seeking admission to 1st year B.E./B.Tech. 1999-2000.
(2.) Before adverting to the points at issue the relevant facts may first be noticed. The Punjab Government under the directions of Ministry of Human Resource Development and All India Council for Technical Education had framed a scheme in 1994 whereby Diploma holders were to be granted admission directly into the second year or 3rd semester of Bachelor of Engineering/Technology course. For this purpose a separate entrance test was introduced which was known as LEET i.e. Lateral Entry Engineering Test. It is an admitted fact that the fee structure of students admitted directly to the second year of the degree course through LEET was maintained at par with other second year students who had been admitted to the degree course in the 1st year in the preceding year. This practice had been regularly followed up to 1998. Even in the Information-cum-Admission Brochure issued for LEET-99 by the University, this parity had been maintained. Clause 4.5 of Part B of this Brochure which is relevant for this purpose is reproduced for ready reference:- "4.5 Each candidate selected for admission, after counselling, will be required to deposit the original certificates and Rupees 5000/- failing which the admission shall stand cancelled. After deducting the processing fee, the balance amount shall be remitted to the Institution to which the candidate is admitted finally.The candidate admitted to a particular institute shall deposit full fee to the respective institution not later than three days after the start of session, failing which the admission shall automatically stand cancelled.The fee structure which is applicable to the second year students of B.Tech. (1998 Batch) programme will be applicable to the students who are admitted to Second Year/Third Semester on the basis of LEET-99."(Emphasis supplied)The last date for submission of forms for entrance test as per this Brochure was 25-6-1999 and the entrance test was conducted on 18-7-1999. The result was to be declared latest by 2-8-1999. The last date for submission of application form for admission by the selected candidates was 12-8-1999. The counselling dates were 17-8-1999 to 20-8-1999. It was on 12-8-1999, the last date for submission of application forms for admission, that the impugned notice about enhancement in fee appeared in the English daily newspaper 'The Tribune'. It is in the background of these facts that the petitioners have challenged the action of respondents in notifying the enhancement in the fee structure for the candidate admitted through LEET-99.
(3.) Sh. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that there was no justification whatsoever in issuing the impugned notice on 12-8-1999. According to him, the decision of the Punjab Government relied upon in this notice appears to be the one contained in letter dated 15-3-1999 addressed to the Director, Technical Education and Training, Punjab, Chandigarh (Annexure P-1). He argued that as per this letter, the revised tuition fee and other fee were to be charged from the students admitted to the first year of the degree course in the academic session 1999-2000 and not to the students admitted directly into the second year under the LEET-99. He pointed out that the University had earlier issued an Information-cum-Admission Brochure for the Common Entrance Test 1999 (for short "CET-99") held on 30-5-1999 for admission to the First year of Bachelor of Engineering/Technology/Architecture courses and the relevant letters of the State Government dated 15-3-1999 had duly been annexed as Annexures-7 and 8 in the Brochure itself. In clause 4.5 of Part B of this Brochure, it had been mentioned that the fee structure was to be governed by these two Annexures. To elaborate his argument he referred to Rule 4.5 of Part B of this Brochure which reads as under : "4.5. Each candidate selected for admission, after counselling, will be required to deposit the original certificates and Rupees 5000/- failing which the admission shall stand cancelled. After deducting the processing fee, the balance amount shall be remitted to the institution to which the candidate is admitted finally for refund to the candidate.The candidate admitted to a particular institute shall deposit full fee to the respective institution not later than three days after the start of session, failing which the admission shall automatically stand cancelled.The fee structure has been mentioned in Annexures-VII and VIII."The Information-cum-Admission Brochure for LEET-99 had admittedly been issued subsequent to the Brochure for CET-99 and, therefore, it cannot be said that while specifying the fee structure for LEET-99 candidates the Punjab Technical University had overlooked the letters of the State Government. According to the learned counsel since the candidates admitted through LEET-99 were to be governed by the fee structure applicable to the second year students of B.Tech. (1998 Batch), the University had not found it necessary to refer to these letters or annexed them in the Admission Brochure. It was contended that the action of the University in issuing the impugned notice on 12-8-1999 was not on account of any subsequent instructions received from the State Government but was based on a change of its perception about the interpretation of the State Government's letter dated 15-3-1999. It was submitted that the candidates admitted through LEET-99 directly to the Second year of the degree course was a category apart and had been consistently treated at par with the other students of the same class. This benefit had specifically been conveyed in the Information-cum-Admission Brochure as per the relevant provision already reproduced above. It is submitted that there is no instruction from the Government for withdrawal of this concession nor can the letter of the State Government dated 15-3-1999 be read to lead to any such interpretation. It was then contended that even if it were to be assumed that the letter dated 15-3-1999 did warrant charging of fee from the petitioners at the revised rates, yet the University was not competent to issue the impugned notice as it resulted in amendment of the Information-cum-Admission Brochure after the test had already been conducted and the result declared. It was submitted that this was not permissible. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, (1993) 2 Pun LR 212, wherein it had been held that the prospectus issued for admission had the force of law and the admission had to be governed by the instructions laid down in the prospectus after the students had appeared in the examination on the basis of such prospectus. It was further held that it was not open to the State Government thereafter to issue contrary instructions. Similar view was taken by another Bench of this Court in Varinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1997 (4) Recent Services Judgments 223 : (AIR 1998 Punj and Har 42). Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the impugned notice was liable to be quashed on this ground as well. Lastly, it was contended that the action of the respondents in charging a higher fee structure from the students admitted through LEET-99 was totally discriminatory and unfair and was liable to be quashed on this score also. It was pointed out that as a result of this notice a situation had arisen whereby students in the same class getting same services are being charged different fee. As an illustration it was pointed out that a student admitted through LEET-99 had to pay Rs. 68950/- as tuition fee while another student of the same class had been charged a sum of Rs. 36882/- as tuition fee simply because he had joined the first year degree course in the year 1998.;