G.S.SANDHAWALIA,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to allow the petitioner to attend classes in the MBBS First Year for the year 2016 having been admitted to the course on 19.09.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that he had done his 10+2 from the Modern Sandeepni School, Mamoon Dalhouise Road, Pathankot (Annexure P-1 colly.). In pursuance of the advertisement for admission for the MBBS and BDS Courses with the respondent-University under the Punjab Medical Entrance Test (PMET-2016) he had given the same under the reserved category of Scheduled Caste (SC), which was mentioned as Category No.12. He had scored total number of 92.7866155 as per the revised result (Annexure P-4) and had a rank of 32 in his category and had open merit of 1083. He belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh being a permanent resident of District Kangra and, therefore, had opted for the Government Medical College at Amritsar as it was closer to his permanent residence. He was issued provisional allotment letter (Annexure P-6) in the said quota and was directed to deposit tuition fee of Rs.80,000/- and the online counselling fee of Rs.3,000/-. His testimonials and eligibility documents were checked and everything was found satisfactory and resultantly the admission was granted on 19.09.2016. He deposited the said amount of Rs.83,000/- (Annexure P-8) and attended classes from 23.09.2016 to 28.09.2016. However, no roll number was issued to him. He had gone to his native place on 29.09.2016 on account of a holiday and was, thereafter, informed telephonically that his admission has been cancelled as his caste certificate was of a different State. He had given representations as such, thereafter, but of no avail. He had also qualified in the All India Quota under Graduate Medical/Dental Seats and had figured at Serial No.4 in his category against the 7 reserved seats for Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar Government Medical College, Nahan, District Sirmour (Himachal Pradesh), but had opted not to attend counselling.
(2.) The State in its response filed by respondent No.3 has submitted that as per the letter dated 17.01.1996 (Annexure R-3) of the Government of Punjab Welfare Department, the petitioner is not entitled to the concessional benefits admissible to the reserved candidates of Punjab State, because he belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is further averred that the letter itself is part of the prospectus PMET-2016, which has been appended as Annexure R-1. It is the case of the State that the petitioner had been given provisional admission, but after seeing the SC category certificate it was not approved by the District Welfare Department, Amritsar. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to attend his classes and he was informed telephonically on 29.09.2016 regarding his discrepancy in the caste certificate. The respondent-University was also informed about this. Reference has been made to the appointment of the Committee by the Principal of the college on 19.09.2016 for checking the documents of the allotted candidates. The Committee had met on 29.09.2016 and checked the original documents of the candidates and decided to take the opinion of the Welfare Department and got clarified the point and acted accordingly. Resultantly, he was not allowed to attend the classes till the opinion was obtained on 03.10.2016. It is further submitted that after complete verification in all respects, the roll number of the students were issued. The University Authorities had been informed on 25.10.2016 stating the fact of vacant seat of the reserved category.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that in view of the above there is no dispute that the petitioner has been given the admission. Therefore, there was a principle of promissory estoppel, which would come into play as he had altered his position. Mr. Thakur has pointed out that on 28.09.2016 (Annexure P-11), the petitioner was at Sr. No.4 against the 7 reserved seats in the Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar Government Medical College and had he has been informed at earlier point of time about that his admission was liable to be cancelled, he could have opted to take admission in the said institute. It is, thus, submitted that he has been put to great loss and resultantly his admission should be regularized. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments Sanatan Gauda vs. Berhampur University and others 1990 AIR (SC) 1075, Ashok Chand Singhvi vs. University of Jodhpur and others 1989 AIR (SC) 823, Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs. Karnataka University and another 1986 AIR (SC) 1448, P. Ranjitha vs. University Grants Commission 1990(41) DLT 444, Manish Tanwar vs. Principal Rajdhani College 1996(63) DLT 906, Kanishka Aggarwal vs. University of Delhi and others 1992 AIR (Delhi) 105, Dental Council of India vs. Harpreet Kaur and others 1995(Sup1) SCC 304 and Javed Akhtar and another vs. Jamia Hamdard & another decided on 05.12.2006 of the Delhi High Court to argue that once the fees have been deposited he is entitled to continue with the course as it has prejudicially affect him and would lead to loss of a precious academic year.;