- (1.) This petition seeks quashing of letter dated 19.6.2007, Annexure P. 1, whereby the petitioners were informed by the College-respondent No. 3 that their admissions had been cancelled by the University.
(2.) Facts stated on behalf of the petitioners are that they appeared in the Punjab Medical Entrance Test (PMET)-2006 for admission to BDS but were not successful in getting admissions in the centralised counselling. Thereafter on 28.9.2006 they applied for admission to respondent No. 3 National Dental College and Hospital, Gulabgarh, Derrabassi and appeared before the Selection Committee. They are placed in the waiting list, which was duly signed by the representative of the University. On the basis of the said waiting list, the petitioners were given admission on 30.9.2006. On 19.6.2007, the petitioners were informed that their Roll Numbers had not been issued by the University on the ground that their admissions were cancelled.
(3.) In the reply filed on behalf of the University, it has been stated that admissions of the petitioners were in pursuance of advertisement issued on 30.9.2006, Annexure R-2/1, which was a fraud on law, making mockery of merit and transparency. Large number of candidates who had qualified PMET-2006 and scored far higher marks than the petitioners, were available but without giving any opportunity to meritorious candidates, respondent No. 3 College gave admissions to the petitioners on a false pretext that candidates with higher merit were not available. The admissions of the petitioners being lacking in merit and transparency, were void. It has been further stated as under : "The six students in question in the present case secured the following marks in PMET-06 :- 1. Charu Sood 460) 2. Jasleen Kaur 223) 3. Nisha Chhabra 352)Less than 50% 4. Pallavi Joshi 312) 5. Sukhvir Kaur 288) 6. Sukhmeet Kaur 288) Five out of the six candidates above have secured less than 50% marks in PMET-06 and are out rightly in eligible for admission. As a matter of fact, the marks secured by these 5 candidates are appallingly low (three of them having got less than 300 marks). In so far as the sixth candidate, Ms. Charu Sood who has secured 460 marks is concerned, the merit list/waiting list prepared by the University contains as many as 131 candidates who have obtained between 483 and 464 marks (both 483 and 464 included, apart from 26 candidates who had all secured 484 marks (the last candidate submitted by the University having obtained 484 marks). No merit list beyond or below 464 marks was prepared by the University. All the six admissions made by the College, are, therefore, clearly and wholly illegal and fraudulent and in gross violation of the principle of merit. Four out of these 6 admissions were made on 30.9.2006, pursuant to a same day advertisement carried on 30.9.2006 itself. As stated above such advertisements are nothing but fraud writ large. The advertisement for admissions made on 28.9.2006 was published on 17.9.2006 but the principle of merit remains a glaring casualty (as detailed above). The University nominee rightly did not sign the proceedings of the Selection Committee for this reason. As for the admissions made on 30.9.2006, no question of the participation of the University in the selection arose because of the same day advertisements. The profit made by the College from such fraudulent admissions is a matter of enquiry.;