R.C. Kathuria, J. - (1.) IN the above mentioned 26 writ petitions the prayer made by the Petitioners is for quashing a part of the provisions of the Information Brochure/Prospectus for Entrance Examination Session 1999 -2001 providing 20 marks for interview while finalising the admissions to the Elementary Teachers Training Course (hereinafter referred to as 'ETT Course') for the session 1999 -2001 on the plea that this provision has been introduced in order to select less meritorious candidates at the cost of meritorious candidates. Consequently, the admission granted on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates including the private Respondents has also been sought to be quashed with a further direction to the official Respondents to grant admission to the eligible candidates including the Petitioners on the basis of marks secured by them in the written test.
(2.) FOR the sake of convenience the fact have been taken from C.W.P. No. 15849 of 2000. The case set -up by the Petitioners is that the Department of Education of the State of Punjab took a policy decision to hold a joint entrance test of candidates for admission to ETT Course in J.B.T. institutions and District Institute of Educational Training (hereinafter referred to as DIET) for the session 1999 -2001. As per the criteria prescribed in the prospectus, the candidates who were residents of the State of Punjab and had passed 10+2 examination or equivalent examination with 50% marks in case of candidates falling under general category and with 45% marks for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were eligible and qualified for admission to the course of DIET under the control of State Council of Education Research and Training, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as 'SCERT') in the State of Punjab. The admission notice was issued in the Indian Express dated 2nd March, 2000 and the last date for receipt of applications was 10th March, 2000. Initially 100 seats for the ETT Course were allotted to each of the District Institutes. The admissions were to be made district -wise. Later on, number of seats for some of the districts was increased which was duly notified. Out of the total seats in each district 50% seats were reserved for women and 50% were for men. These 50% seats were again required to be distributed among the categories for which reservation has been provided in the prospectus. The entrance test comprised of 180 marks consisting the subjects of General Science, Teaching Aptitude Test, Language Proficiency Test and subject knowledge test. 20 marks were for interview for admission to ETT Course in the above mentioned J.B.T. Schools and institutions. It was also provided in the prospectus that in case a boy/girl obtained equal marks in the entrance examination then seat will be given on the basis of date of birth to the boy/girl who is elder in age. The merit list was also required to be prepared district -wise. The Petitioners who had applied for the ETT Course took on 9th April, 2000. Initially, the result was declared on 1st May, 2000 (Annexure -P.2). It was challenged by a number of candidates by filing writ petitions and under the direction of this Court the result was re -published by categorizing the candidates for each category along with their marks in the newspaper on 9th June, 2000 (Annexure -P.3). As the candidates who belong to the reserved categories on the basis of their higher merit were required to be shown in the select list were not considered against the seats meant for general category candidates, under the orders of this Court, the result was again published in the newspapers on 17th July, 2000 and 24th July, 2000, copies of which are Annexures -P.4 and P.5. Thereafter, the candidates were called for interview at the district level. During the course of interview conducted by the Selection Committees constituted at the district level one or two minutes time was devoted to interview the candidates during which period their certificates were examined and to some of the candidates not even a single question was asked. The only purpose for holding the interview was to exclude the meritorious candidates who had done well in the entrance test and the result declared reveals that the candidates who had secured very good marks in the entrance test were excluded from the selection zone as during the interview the Selection Committee gave them less marks in comparison to the candidates who had secured less marks in the entrance test. To support their stand reference was made to a number of candidates who had been given 18 to 19 marks out of 20 marks in the interview. On the basis of data tabulated in the petition which shall be adverted to later on, it was stated that the action of the Respondents in providing 20 marks for the interview and that too without any criteria shows that the members of the Selection Committee had acted arbitrarily with the sole object of including the less meritorious candidates and to exclude the meritorious candidates like the Petitioners in illegal manner and the same being discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice, was liable to be set aside. Additionally, it was also pleaded that in the process of admission of the candidates for academic courses no marks are provided for interview and but for the session 1999 -2001, the Punjab Government had been making admissions to the ETT Course also in the basis of merit obtained in the entrance test alone without providing any marks for interview. Even under the guide -lines issued by the National Council for Teacher Education (hereinafter referred to as 'NCTE), the States have been making admissions on the basis of combined entrance test and no State had ever allotted marks for interview. On these premises, the Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While controverting the stand of the Petitioners, it was pleaded on behalf of official Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the written statement filed by Sohan Lal, Director, State Council of Education, Research and Training, Punjab, who had been arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in these petitions, that Elementary Teachers Training Entrance Test was started in the year 1989 and for the session 1999 -2001 the Punjab Government decided to conduct the ETT Course in a different way. For this purpose 180 marks were earmarked for written test and 20 marks were earmarked for interview. Provision in the prospectus for providing 20 marks for interview was justified for making objective and reliable assessment of the candidates. It was further stated that under Act No. 93 of 1993 the NCTE was established with the object of achieving balanced and co -ordinated development of teachers education system throughout the country, regulations and proper maintenance of laws and standards in the Teachers Education System and for the matters connected therewith. Admission criteria was also laid down by the said council. It was not disputed by him that result of the ETT Course test held on 9th April, 2000 was declared on 1st May, 2000 and as per direction of this Court in C.W.P. No. 6472 of 2000, Nisha Goyal and Ors. v. State of Punjab, result of the said test was re - published in the press on 9th June, 2000, 17th July, 2000 and 24th July, 2000. It was also pleaded by him that the candidates of three times of the total seats were called for interview. It was further stated by him that Punjab Government vide memo No. ll/l/2000 -5 -Edu -7/110045, dated 30th May, 2000 had constituted Sub -committees for various districts and DIET for conducting interviews. Explaining about the interview marks awarded to the candidates, it was stated that each candidate was interviewed individually and sufficient time and opportunity was given to him/her. The Selection Committees also judged the general awareness regarding current affairs and personal aptitude of each candidates and thus the marks awarded to each of the candidates were in equitable and just manner. The stand taken by the official Respondent No. 1 to 3 is common in other writ petitions. No separate written statement have been filed in other cases and it has been submitted that the same be read as reply to all other petitions.
(3.) IN C.W.P. No. 15182 of 2000, Respondent Nos. 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 have filed their written statement, wherein they contested the stand of the Petitioners. It was averred by them that they have been granted admission as per procedure prescribed in the prospectus. They had not misrepresented or mis -stated any fact to the authorities at the time of seeking admission to the course. Further according to them if the Petitioners had any grievance with regard to the criteria laid down for the grant of admission in any respect they could have challenged the same before the entrance test was held. The Petitioners had, after accepting the terms and conditions, rules and regulations and procedure for conduct of entrance test, applied for the course through their respective districts and thereafter appeared in the entrance test and interview conducted by the official Respondents. Thereafter, finding themselves unsuccessful in the merit list, the Petitioners are estopped from challenging the selection criteria after declaration of the result. While justifying their merit in the written test it was maintained by them that the interview for 20 marks had been prescribed for the candidates who had secured merit in the written test to judge the mental ability, aptitude towards teaching, environmental knowledge concerning the teaching and general awareness. It was further stated by them that the provision for interview had been introduced by the authorities to judge the suitability of the candidates who were seriously adopting the teaching profession in order to impart best elementary education to the upcoming children. As many as 26,000 candidates had applied for the course who had appeared in the entrance test and after taking into account marks secured in the written test and performance in the interview the merit of the candidates was drawn and thus there was no illegality, arbitrariness of mala fide warranting interference in the result declared.;