SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sandeep Kumar through present petition filed by his under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the admission of respondent No.4 and further to direct the official respondents to grant him admission in his (respondent No. 4) place to the E.T.T.course for the sessions 1998-2000 from the sports category.

(2.) Brief facts on which relief aforesaid is sought to rest reveal that the entrance test for admission to E.T.T.course was conducted for the session 1998-2000 on 7-2-1999 which was to start w.e.f. 1-4-1999. Petitioner appeared in the said test in sports category having B Grade certificate from the Sports Directorate, Punjab. The result of E.T.T.Entrance examination was published in the Tribune on 1-3-1999. The petitioner could, however, make it to waiting list only even though at No.1. Respondent No.4 who likewise had competed in the entrance test in the category of petitioner under the sports category was at No. 53. The selected candidates were asked by the Principal District Education and Training Institute to join on or before 26-3-1999. The Principal D.I.E.T.addressed a letter to the Convener E.T.T.ENTRANCE TEST 1998-2000-cum-Director Public Instructions (Primary-Punjab Government, Chandigarh informing that only 96 students have been admitted in the institute and respondent No.4 who was from sports category did not come for admission. In the wake of this letter petitioner approached the Secretary Eduction Department, Punjab, Chandigarh on 17-4-1999 and requested him that as selected candidate did not join the course, he may be given admission to the sports category. On 6-5-1999, the petitioner was told that he could not be granted admission as respondent No.4 has now been admitted.

(3.) It is so pleaded and contended by Mr. Pipat, learned Counsel representing the petitioner that respondent No.4 did not join the institute within the stipulated period of 15 days from 1-3-1999 or thereafter on 26-3-1999 as desired by Principal District Eduction and Training Institute and his seat, thus, fell vacant. That vide letter dated 1-4-1999 his seat was declared to be vacant and thererore, petitioner was entitled to admission as a matter of right. It is thus, the primary contention of the learned Counsel that respondent No.4 had been accommodated after the due date and in that manner favoured by the respondents.