Jivitesh Dutt vs State Of Punjab And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 17169 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jivitesh Dutt vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 September, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122090-DB



CWP-20492 of 2024 (O&M)               -1-


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                CWP-20492 of 2024 (O&M)
                                                Reserved on: 11.09.2024
                                                Date of Order:17.09.2024

Jivitesh Dutt (minor) through his mother Smt. Vandana
Garg @ Bandani Devi @ Vandana Rani as his natural guardian.

                                                                   .Petitioner
                                   Versus

State of Punjab and others
                                                                ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. D.S.Malik, Advocate and Mr. Ved Priya Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anurag Chopra, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, JUDGE

1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

1.1 The petitioner herein aspires to get admission in Bachelor of

Engineering in the State of Punjab through Category-(i) of public notice

issued by Directorate of Technical Education & Industrial Training, Punjab.

He has also challenged the constitutional validity of instructions dated

06.06.1996, issued by the State of Punjab.

1.2 He claims that his maternal grandfather was killed by terrorists

on 22.01.1988. His mother was born in the State of Punjab. She is settled

Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) after getting married in the year 2005. He was

born in the State of Haryana and his mother is working as an Assistant

Professor in Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Originally, the

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122090-DB

CWP-20492 of 2024 (O&M) -2-

petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him

admission under Group-01, Category-(i), which reads as under:-

"A. ELIGIBILITY

i) Children/Grand Children of those who have lost a bread winner owing to terrorist action or where such a person has suffered permanent disability of 50% and above, as a result of terrorist action.

ii) Children/ Grand children of riot victims, if someone in family, was killed between 31.10.1984 and 07.11.1984 in the riots in Delhi, Bakari, Kanpur and other places."

"The Candidate should be resident of Punjab in terms of Punjab Govt. letter No.1/03/95/PPII/9619 dated 06.06.1996 as mended from time to time. In case of riot victims, if candidate seeks relaxation of residence proof, then detailed justification seeking relaxation with documentary evidence in support of claim should be attached within the application."

ELIGIBILITY

S.No. Affidavit/Certificate Authorities competent Categories to issue the same

(a) Citizens of India Affidavit of the

(b) Produce an affidavit to parents/Guardian to be the effect that they or attested by an Executive their children/wards Magistrate/Oath have not obtained the Commissioner/Notary benefit of residence in Public.

any other States.

                  (i)      Candidates who have Certificate to be signed
                           studied for a period of 5 by                the

years in Punjab or have Headmaster/Principal of studied in Punjab for 2 the recognized years just proceeding Schools/Colleges the qualifying concerned.

examination for the admission.

(ii) Children/Wards of: Certificate to be issued

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122090-DB

CWP-20492 of 2024 (O&M) -3-

(a) The employee of by the respective Head Punjab Government of the Department. posted in or outside Punjab State or working on deputation having atleast 3 years of service.

(b) The employees of Government of India posted in Chandigarh or in Punjab in connection with the affairs of the Punjab Govt. for a period of 3 years.

                      (c) The employees of
                      State         Government
                      Institutions/
                      Undertakings who are
                      posted in Chandigarh or
                      in Punjab in connection
                      with affairs of the
                      Punjab Government for
                      a period of 3 years.

                      (d) The employees
                      having alteast 3 years of
                      service in autonomous
                      bodies/companies       in
                      which Punjab Gov
                      ernment has 20% or ore
                      shares.
              (iii)   Children/Wards of the PPO issued          by the
                      pensioners of Punjab Accountant           General,

Govt. irrespective of the Punjab. fact that the original home of the retiree is in a State other than Punjab or he has settled after retirement in or outside Punjab

(iv) Children/Wards of the Certificate to be issued persons who have by the DC, ADC(R), settled in Punjab or had ADC(D), SDO(Civil), resided in Punjab for a GA to DC, DORG, period of at least 5 years DRO, EM, Tehsildar, at any time prior to the Commissioner of date of the submission Municipal Corporation

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122090-DB

CWP-20492 of 2024 (O&M) -4-

of the application either of Amritsar Jalandhar in pursuit of a and Ludhiana.

profession or holding or a job.

(v) Children/Wards of DC, ADC(R), ADC(D), persons who have held SDO(Civil), GA to DC, immovable property in EM, DORG, Tehsildar/ Punjab for a period of DRO based on copies of five years. The property Jamabandi, Revenue should be in the name of Record, Municipal the parents/guardians or Record, Registered the candidate himself. deeds of any other document to the full satisfaction of the DC.

(vi) Persons who were born As per category (iv) in Punjab and produced above.

a certificate to that effect

2. ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PARTIES:-

2.1 The petitioner's counsel contends that the State while issuing

the prospectus has made an inadvertent error as it has given no specific

clause with respect to the relaxation of residence proof of children, who have

lost a breadwinner owing to a terrorist action. He also submits that the

requirement of residence proof as provided in the guidelines is arbitrary.

Subsequently, he amended the petition to challenge the correctness of

instructions/guidelines issued on 06.06.1996. While relying upon para 10,

19, and 20 of Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. etc. vs. Union of India and others,

(1984) 3 SCC 654,, he submits that the previous judgement passed in

D.P.Joshi vs. State of Madhya Bharat, (1955) 1 SCR 1215, stands

overruled.

2.2 Per contra, the State's counsel has submitted that the relaxation

regarding residence can only be given to the students/candidates falling in

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122090-DB

CWP-20492 of 2024 (O&M) -5-

Category-A(ii) which is distinct from Category-A(i). He further submits that

the guidelines have been issued by the State of Punjab in accordance with

the law laid down in Dr. Pardeep Jain's case (supra).

3. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION:-

3.1 Having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, this

Bench does not find substance in the petition on the following grounds:-

(i) On careful side by side reading of Clause-(i) and (ii), it is

evident that Clause-(i) is applicable to children/ grand

children of those who have lost a breadwinner owing to a

terrorist action or where such a person has suffered

permanent disability of 50% or above as a result of

terrorist action, whereas, Category-(ii) is applicable to

children/grand children of riot victims, who were killed

between 31.10.1984 to 07.11.1984 in the riots in Delhi,

Bakaro, Kanpur and other places. It is evident that one

category is with respect to children/grand children of

those who lost a breadwinner owing to terrorist action,

whereas in second category the expression used is 'riots

victims'. For availing the benefit of Clause-(i), the

candidate is required to be a resident of Punjab in terms

of Punjab Government's Letter issued on 06.06.1996.

The relaxation with respect to residence proof can only be

sought in case of children/grand children of riot victim

and not of terrorist action. Hence, the exemption of

residence proof is not available to the students falling in

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122090-DB

CWP-20492 of 2024 (O&M) -6-

Category-(i).

(ii) The instructions dated 06.06.1996, prescribe the

requirements of residence proof. The State is entitled to

make reservation for its own bonafide residents under

Article 15 of the Constitution of India. The

discrimination on the basis of place of birth is prohibited.

However, the State's powers are not restricted to provide

for reservation/preference to its own bonafide residents.

In Dr. Pardeep Jain's case (supra), this distinction was

noticed and it was held that the reservation can be made

on the basis of residence. However, the court held that

the States cannot reserve all the seats on the basis of

domicile/residence requirement within the State or on the

basis of institutional preference, i.e for the candidates

who have passed the qualifying examination held by the

University or the State and such wholesale reservation

was declared unconstitutional and void.

(iii) On careful reading of the requirements of being

considered a resident, it is evident that an effort has been

made by the State to give preference to its own bonafide

residents. The petitioner's counsel has failed to put forth

any convincing argument that the residence requirements

are arbitrary or unconstitutional.

(iv) Before claiming reservation under a particular category,

the student is required to fulfill its basic requirements. In

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:122090-DB

CWP-20492 of 2024 (O&M) -7-

this case, the petitioner does not fulfill the mandatory

requirements of being considered a resident. It is also not

the petitioner's case that wholesale reservation has been

made by the State.

3.2 This Bench has carefully read the judgment of the Supreme

Court in Dr. Pardeep Jain's case (supra). It is evident that the judgment

passed in D.P.Joshi's case(supra) has not been overruled. The Court has

only explained that wholesale reservation on the basis of domicile/residence

requirement within the State is not appropriate and is void. The judgment of

D.P.Joshi's case(supra) was relied upon by the Bench in Dr. Pardeep

Jain's case (supra).

4. DECISION:-

4.1 For the aforesaid reasons, this court expresses inability to grant

any indulgence to the petitioner.

4.2 Dismissed.

4.3 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

                 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)                            ( SHEEL NAGU )
                     JUDGE                                    CHIEF JUSTICE


17th September, 2024
nt

Whether speaking/reasoned         :       Yes/No
Whether reportable                :       Yes/No




                                        7 of 7