- (1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 93 of 1990 and 17156 of 1989 involving common questions of law and facts. It is considered sufficient to give the facts of Civil Writ Petition No. 93 of 1990.
(2.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit him to the LL.B. Course, for the Session 1989-90. The material facts of the case are as follow :
(3.) The stand of the writ-petitioner is that after passing his B.A. examination from the Panjab University by securing 390 marks out of 650, he applied for admission to the LL.B. First Semester in the Department of Laws, Punjab University, for the Session 1989-90, as he fulfilled the minimum qualifications prescribed by the Panjab University. It is also stated in the writ petition that the University advertised that the admission will be for 300 seats i.e. 150 seats in the morning and 150 seats in the evening. It is stated in the writ petition that although there was no provision made in the Prospectus for admission of the wards of the University employees, the Vice-Chancellor issued a Circular No. Misc. 3206-3355, dated 26.7.1989 sanctioning 5% seats in each course for the year 1989-90. The Circular letter issued by the Vice-Chancellor, Panjab University (Ann. P-2) reads as under :- "It is notified that as a measure of welfare to University employees, the Vice-Chancellor, under the authority given to him under Rule 53, page 555, P.U. Cal. Vol. III (1985) has sanctioned for the employees of this University and their wards (sons, daughters, spouses) additional seats to the extent of 5% in each course for the year 1989-90 subject to a minimum of one seat and a maximum of three seats on the following conditions : (i) that the total reservation including these seats will not exceed the statutory limits. (ii) that these seats will he adjusted against any left unfilled in the other categories; and (iii) that no additional resources will be claimed by any teaching department for these seats. The Vice-Chancellor has further approved that the candidates/wards falling the above category be given an opportunity to apply for admission against these seats by 31st July, 1989. Admissions to these seats shall be made on the 1st August, 1989 or by the last date approved for admissions to a course, whichever is later. The above decision may please be given wide circulation among the employees concerned." The validity of the above said Circular letter issued by the Vice-Chancellor, reserving 5 per cent seats for the wards (Sons, daughters and spouses) of the University employees, has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the provisions of the Circular letter are discriminatory and violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The University filed a written statement by way of affidavit of Shri H.L. Sharma. Registrar, Panjab University, dated January 31, 1990. In the affidavit, the University has defended the reservation made in favour of the sons, daughters and spouses of the University employees. The petitioner filed replication dated February 10, 1990, reiterating his stand. The question whether reservation can be made in favour of wards (sons, daughters and spouses) of the University employees is not res integra. It is well settled that reservation for the wards of the University employees is not permissible under the Constitution. In this connection, reference may be made to Umesh Chandra Sinha V. V.N. Singh and others, 1968 AIR(Pat) 3Prasanna Dinkar Sohale etc. V. The Director-in-Charge Laxminarayan Institute of Technology Nagpur and others, 1982 AIR(Bom) 176, Ajay Kumar V. Chandigarh Administration U.T. Chandigarh and Ors., 1983 AIR(P&H) 8and Ashwinder Kaur V. Panjab University, Chandigarh & Anr., 1989 AIR(P&H) 190. Recently, Sodhi, J. in Praveen Hans V. The Registrar, Punjab University, Chandigarh and Anr., Civil Writ Petition No. 13799 of 1989, decided on 30.11.1989, examined this question in detailed and held that reservation by the University under the impugned circular was bad.;