Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Shantanu Sood & Ors v. Thapar Institute of Engineering - CWP-9827-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 3812 (6 July 2006)

C.W.P. No.9827 of 2006 1


C.W.P. No.9827 of 2006

Date of decision: July 11,2006

Shantanu Sood and others V. Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology and others


Present: Shri Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Shri R.S.Rai, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

Written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 has been filed in court today. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

The petitioners have approached this court for quashing Clause 1.1 of the Information Brochure issued by the Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology,Patiala,( hereinafter referred to as the respondent-Institute) respondents No.1 and 2 whereby the State quota seats have been reduced from 85%( as in the previous year) to 50% and still further the aforesaid 50% reserved seats have been reserved only for the candidates who have passed their qualifying examination ( 10+2 or equivalent) from he Universities/Boards/Schools located in the State of Punjab only. The specific grievance is that the eligibility of the candidates who have passed the aforesaid examination from Union Territory, Chandigarh, which was past practice in the Session year 2005-06 has been changed. The aforesaid students belonging to Union Territory,Chandigarh have not been included for consideration in the aforesaid 50% State quota seats.

C.W.P. No.9827 of 2006 2

The petitioners have maintained that they had appeared in their qualifying examination held in the month of March,2006 from various institutions in Union Territory, Chandigarh and, as such, changing of eligibility criteria for the session 2006-07 by the respondent-Institute( a deemed University) at this late stage, has caused a serious prejudice to the petitioners who have become ineligible for consideration for the reserved quota seats.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been maintained that prior to the session 2006-07, the institution run by respondents No.1 and 2 was included in the list of institutions for which a common process of admission was followed. However, information bulletin had been issued by All India Engineering/Architecture Entrance Examination on December 5,2005, whereby the Institution run by Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology had been excluded. It has also been maintained by the respondents that a separate and independent brochure/hand book of Information had been issued by respondent- Institute which had been released on April 27,2004 on internet. A common entrance test was held for AIEEE on April 30,2006 by Central Board of Secondary Education. The respondent-Institute was not to be a part of the aforesaid admission process. The respondents have also produced a communication dated May 25,2006, issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education to the Registrar of respondent-Institute whereby approval had been granted to Thaper Institute to make admission for the sessions 2006-07 by way of their own counselling and a permission has been granted to the aforesaid institute to use Score Card of AIEEE 2006 subject to certain conditions.

On the basis aforesaid documents and the pleas, Shri R.S.Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Institute maintains that the process of admission had been initiated by the respondent-Institute by C.W.P. No.9827 of 2006 3

using the Score Card of AIEEE 2006 subject to the aforesaid conditions imposed by Central Board of Secondary Education. Shri R.S.Rai, on instructions from Col.(Retd.) Jagdev Singh, Registrar of Thaper Institute of Engineering & Technology, who is present in court specifically states that the aforesaid information with regard to 50% reservation and exclusion of Union Territory Chandigarh students from any reservation has been released by the respondent-Institute on internet on April 27,2006 i.e. even prior to the entrance test which was held by the Central Board of Secondary Education.

In view of the aforesaid specific stand taken by the respondent-Institute, we find that there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed.

(Viney Mittal )


July 11, 2006 ( H.S. Bhalla )

sks Judge


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.