- (1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by one Ravinder Pal Singh (minor) through his father challenging the action of the respondents in not giving him admission to the Bachelor of Architecture Course which commenced in the year 1987.
(2.) What has been challenged in this petition is the validity of reservation of seats for University employees or their wards or the wards of the employees working in the affiliated colleges for admission to various courses in the teaching departments on the ground that the same is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The other attack is directed against the number of seats reserved for University employees or their wards which are 2 per cent subject to a minimum of one seat in any course whereas 3 per cent seats which are reserved for physically handicapped persons for admission to various classes are not subject to the same minimum figure. Admittedly, there were in all te seats in Bachelor of Architecture course for the session 1987 and 3 per cent seats out of these were reserved for physically handicapped persons which came to 3 and this figure being less than one, no seat was provided to this category of candidates. On the other hand, seats for University employees or their wards were reserved to the extent of 2 per cent only subject to a minimum of one seat and one candidate was admitted under this category. This, according to the petitioner, was also violative of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person with 25 per cent disability in his right foot.
(3.) When this writ petition was admitted by the motion bench on September 14, 1987, the University was directed to admit the petitioner to the aforesaid course on provisional basis at his own risk and responsibility. In terms of the interim order the petitioner was then admitted and has by now completed the course which is divided into ten semesters. He was promoted to all the successive semesters and has also appeared in all the examinations. Now that the petitioner has not only completed the course but has also appeared in all the examinations in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, it would not be in the interest of justice to cancel his admission at this stage. I am, therefore, of the view that no useful purpose would be served in deciding the petition on merits and the ends of justice required that the respondents be directed to regularise his admission and declare the result of the petitioner forthwith so that he may continue with further pursuits in life. I order accordingly. The petition stands disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs.;