Punjab-Haryana High Court
Samarveer Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
CWP-34334
34334-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-34334-2024
2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.01.202
.2025
Samarveer Singh ....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL
Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with
Mr. A.S. Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Chopra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. Nitin Kaushal, Advocate (through V.C.) wit
with
Mr. Sahil, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
SUMEET GOEL,
GOEL JUDGE
1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in the
nature of certiorari, seeking quashing of letter/order dated 11.12.2024
(Annexure P-13),
P 13), whereby respondent No.4 has cancelled the admission of
the petitioner in respondent No.3-College
College for the Session 2024 onwards.
onwards
Additionally the petitioner seeks
Additionally; ks the issuance of an appropriate writ, order
or direction, including a writ in the nature of mandamus
mandamus; directing
respondent Nos.3 and 4 to permit the petitioner to attend classes/lectures of
the MBBS course and to refrain from taking any punitive action aagainst
gainst the
petitioner on account of any shortage in attendance.
2. Shorn of the non-essential details
details; the facts of the case which
need recital are that the petitioner (herein) had appeared in the National
Eligibility
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG)-2024,
2024, and secured 456 out of a total of
720 marks. The petitioner applied for the admission under the 50% State
Quota in the Freedom Fighters
Fighter category. The Baba Farid University of
Health Sciences (hereinafter
(hereinafter to be referred as ''BFUHS')-respondent
respondent No.2
1 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
(herein), was designated by the State of Punjab, as the authority for
conducting counselling and carrying out admission of the medical students,
across the State of Punjab, to facilitate the process. The petitioner, duly
applied for admission under the State Quota, through online portal of
BFUHS, paid the requisite fee and participated in the online counselling
process.
2.1. Following the first round of online counselling, the petitioner
received a provisional allotment letter dated 31.08.2024 (Annexure P-5) and
was allocated a seat under the Freedom Fighters category in the Government
Medical College at Amritsar under the Government Quota. Subsequently,
the petitioner was issued a provisional admission slip dated 03.09.2024
(Annexure P-6) and after completion of all the required formalities and
document verification by the respondent No.3-College, a final admission
certificate was issued to the petitioner.
2.2. After verification of all the documents and recommendation of
BFUHS, the Principal of the Government Medical College, Amritsar, issued
a letter dated 10.10.2024 (Annexure P-9) to the Registrar, BFUHS, seeking
clarification regarding the admission of the petitioner under the Freedom
Fighters category. The Registrar, upon clarification, directed respondent
Nos.3 and 4 to allow the petitioner to join the MBBS course for the
academic Session of 2024 with immediate effect. However, respondent
No.4 again raised objections regarding the admission of the petitioner
through a letter dated 22.10.2024. In response, the Registrar reiterated its
earlier directions through a letter dated 24.10.2024 (Annexure P-11),
instructing the respondent No.4 to permit the petitioner to join the course
without any further delay.
2 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
2.3. Despite the aforesaid clear directives by respondent No.2, the
respondent No.4 chose to cancel the admission of the petitioner vide
impugned letter/order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-13), on the basis of
letter dated 14.09.1995 (Annexure P-14).
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has iterated that the
documents of the petitioner, including the certificate endorsing certifying
him as the grandson of a freedom fighter, were duly uploaded on the online
portal during the counselling process. It has been further argued that the
respondent No.2 verified the documents and allotted respondent No.3-
College to the petitioner and issued him a provisional admission slip.
Furthermore, after additional verification by the Committee constituted by
respondent No.3-College, the petitioner was issued a final admission
certificate. According to the learned senior counsel; despite clear directions
from the respondent No.2 to allow the petitioner to join the College, the
respondent No.4 arbitrarily cancelled his admission, without any authority.
Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the impugned order dated
11.12.2024 (Annexure P-13) has wrongly cancelled the admission of the
petitioner, ignoring the fact that a final admission certificate had already
been issued to him, after following the due process. Learned senior counsel
has asserted that once the final admission is granted, respondent No.4 has no
authority to take any action against the petitioner. It has been submitted by
the learned senior counsel that the reliance placed on the letter dated
14.09.1995 by respondent No.4 is erroneous as these instructions are
prospective in nature and do not apply to the petitioner, whose father was
certified as the son of a freedom fighter, in the year 1991. Moreover, the
notification dated 10.03.2023 confirms that all the children and
grandchildren of the freedom fighters are eligible for 1% reservation. The
3 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
administrative instructions cannot override a statutory notification and any
distinction made between an adopted and a biological child is arbitrary and
illegal. According to the learned senior counsel; the status of the petitioner
as the grandson of a Freedom Fighter was certified by the Deputy
Commissioner, Faridkot vide certificate dated 25.03.2022 and hence, the
respondent No.4 is neither competent nor authorized to question this
certificate. The cancellation of the admission of the petitioner by respondent
No.4 is, thus, arbitrary and illegal. Learned senior counsel has contended
that the respondent No.2, designated by the State of Punjab, to oversee the
counselling and admissions, repeatedly directed the respondent Nos.3 and 4
to allow the petitioner to join and attend the classes/lectures. Despite these
directions, the respondent No.4 has cancelled the admission of the petitioner,
acting beyond its authority and contrary to the binding instructions. The
arbitrary cancellation of the admission of the petitioner has caused
irreparable harm, especially when the NEET-2024 counselling period has
expired.
4. Learned State counsel has opposed the instant petition by
arguing that a complaint was received against the petitioner in the office of
respondent No.4, prompting an inquiry. During the inquiry, additional
documents were sought from the father of the petitioner, who submitted the
Adoption deed. The Adoption deed explicitly mentions that the adopting
father Shri Boorh Singh had five daughters. Upon receiving the complaint,
respondent Nos.3 and 4 sought advice from the appellate authority (DRME)
regarding the cancellation of the admission of the petitioner, who further
directed the matter to the Department of Freedom Fighter for an opinion
thereon. In response thereto, the Department of Freedom Fighter referred to
two letters, especially Letter No.9(13)-8P.-02-84/12532-12535 dated
4 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
14.09.1995 (Annexure P-14), which stipulates that the benefits of the
Freedom Fighter quota cannot be extended to the adopted children of
Freedom Fighters who already have biological children. This letter
(hereinafter to be referred as "1995 letter") reads thus:
" "I have been directed to draw your attention towards the
Government letter No.9 (13)-3P2-84/5822 dated 04.04.1985 and to write
that it is the demand of the Freedom Fighters since long that those
freedom fighters, who do not have any child, the children adopted by them
legally, all the facilities should have been admissible to them, which are
admissible to the children of freedom fighters.
2. After considering this matter, the Government has decided that
those freedom fighters, who do not have any child, the children adopted by
them legally, all the facilities such as reservation in direct recruitment of
class-I and 2, 2% reservation in the professional courses, scholarships in
schools, colleges and the facility of copies and the hostels etc. may be
given to them. The Deputy Commissioner of the district of which the
freedom fighter/heir would belong, will be the competent authority to issue
the necessary certificate. For issuing the necessary certificate in this
regard, the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District will verify at
his own level that the child is adopted by the freedom fighter legally or his
real child."
Learned State counsel has, thus, iterated that, as per the 1995
letter, which introduced the policy for adopted children, the benefits could
not be afforded to the petitioner as the petitioner was born in the year 2006
i.e. after the issuance of this Policy. On the strength of these submissions,
dismissal of the petition in hand is sought for.
5. Separate reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2-
Baba Farid University of Heath Sciences, Faridkot, Punjab, relevant whereof
reads as under:
"17. That in view of the submission made above, it is reiterated that
Petitioner's admission was declared as per rules and based on the
documents submitted by him and the petitioner should get admission in the
applied category without any discrimination. Decisions have been taken
by the University from time to time after examining all the facts. The
5 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
answering respondent has no objection if the petitioner's admission be
continued."
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has raised
submissions in tandem with the above-said reply.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have
perused the paper-book with their able assistance.
7. The prime issue which arises for consideration in the petition in
hand is, as to whether the letter/order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-13),
whereby the admission of the petitioner in respondent No.3-College has
been cancelled, deserves to be set-aside.
8. Indubitably, the petitioner had applied for admission into the
MBBS course and was selected therein on the basis of an entrance test and
counselling carried out therein. The petitioner, had applied for admission on
the basis of Prospectus dated 09.08.2024 issued by the State of Punjab for
admission to MBBS/BDS courses-in Medical & Dental Institutes in the State
of Punjab, for the Session 2024 onwards. The relevant reservation related
clause contained therein reads thus:
"15. Reservation in Government Medical/Dental Colleges:
The reservation for the State quota seats in Government Institutes in
various categories for admission to the Undergraduate courses in
Government Medical/Dental Institutes shall be as under:
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx xxx
(ix) Children/grandchildren of freedom fighters of Punjab 1%"
Further, Clause 24 of the said Prospectus reads thus:
""24. This notification supersedes all the notifications for admission to
MBBS/BDS courses in the State, issued earlier."
9. The admission of the petitioner has been cancelled on account
of the 1995 letter which is addressed to the Deputy Commissioners in the
6 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
State of Punjab, Secretary of Punjab Public Services Commission, Secretary
of Subordinate Services Selection Board of Punjab and all Semi-
Government Organizations under Government of Punjab. The Prospectus in
question contains clear and specific reservation criteria. By no stretch of
legal imagination, the said communication/letter can be read to be
qualifying, in any manner, the reservation criteria provided for in the
prospectus in question. It would be apposite to refer herein to a Full Bench
judgment of this Court passed in Rahul Prabhakar vs. Punjab Technical
University, Jalandhar 1997(3) SCT 526, relevant whereof reads as under:
"7. A Full Bench of this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota v. The State
of Punjab, 1993(4) SLR 673 : 1993(4) SCT 328 (P&H) (FB) had to
consider the scope and binding force of the provisions contained in the
prospectus. The Bench took the view that the prospectus issued for
admission to a course, has the force of law and it was not open to
alteration. In Raj Singh v. Maharshi Dayanand University, 1994(4) RSJ
289 : 1994(2) SCT 766 (P&H) (FB) another Full Bench of this Court took
the view that a candidate will have to be taken to be bound by the
information supplied in the admission form and cannot be allowed to take
a stand that suits him at a given time. The Full Bench approved the view
expressed in earlier Full Bench that eligibility for admission to a Course
has to be seen according to the prospectus issued before the Entrance
Examination and that the admission has to be made on the basis of
instructions given in the prospectus, having the force of law. Again Full
Bench of this Court in Sachin Gaur v. Punjabi University, 1996(1) RSJ 1
: 1996(1) SCT 83\7 (P&H) (FB) took the view that there has to be a cut
off date provided for admission and the same cannot be changed
afterwards. These views expressed by earlier Full Benches have been
followed in CWP No.6756 of 1996 by the three of us constituting another
Full Bench. Thus, it is settled law that the provisions contained in the
information brochure for the common entrance Test 1997 have the force of
law and have to be strictly complied with. xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
Thus, the inescapable conclusion that emerges upon a
meticulous examination of the Clause 24 of the Prospectus, particularly
when viewed against the backdrop of established legal principle affirming
that a prospectus carries the force of law and must be adhered to without
7 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
deviation, is that the 1995 letter is to be considered otiose for ascertaining
the reservation criteria for courses governed by the Prospectus. It is,
therefore, that the reservation scheme outlined in the Prospectus takes
precedence and holds primacy over the reservation framework prescribed in
the year 1995 letter. The Prospectus being a binding legal document, cannot
be supplanted or undermined by an antedated administrative letter (1995
letter) which explicitly stands inoperative owing to a specific provision, in
the form of Clause 24, contained in the Prospectus.
9.1. The doctrine proscribing change of rules midway through the
game or after the game is played, is predicated on the rule against
arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 16 is only
an instance of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article
14. In other words, Article 14 is the genus while Article 16 is a species.
Article 16 gives effect to the concept of equality in all matters relating to the
public employment. These two articles strike at arbitrariness in State action
and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action
must be based on valid relevant principles alike to all, similarly situated, and
is not to be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations. In all its
actions, the State is bound to act fairly, in a transparent manner. This is an
elementary requirement of the guarantee against arbitrary State action, which
Article 14 of the Constitution adopts. A deprivation of the entitlement of
private citizens and private businesses must be proportional to a requirement
grounded in public interest. The unequivocal conclusion, thus, is that the
stipulations contained in the Prospectus have binding force and no deviation
can be made therefrom. In other words, the conditions contained in the
Prospectus have to be scrupulously adhered to and no party can be extended
any latitude to vary them. In other words, "Rules of Game" must not be
8 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
changed once the game has begun, during the course of game or after the
game has been played. Such course of action is impermissible in law. Ergo,
the plea raised by State of Punjab that reservation criteria/condition as
contained in the Prospectus in question is circumscribed by the
letter/communication dated 14.09.1995 is misfounded and, hence, calls for
rejection.
10. It is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner namely Shri
Prabhjeet Singh was adopted by one Shri Boorh Singh in adoption ceremony
on 17.07.1986, qua which the adoption deed was later on executed on
17.07.1988. The veracity of the said Adoption-deed is not in dispute.
Further, the factum of Shri Boorh Singh being a freedom fighter and his
progeny being entitled to the benefit of freedom fighter quota is also not in
dispute. However, the State of Punjab has proceeded to annul the admission
granted to the petitioner, primarily, on the strength of the 1995 letter. This
letter/communication stipulates that the children adopted by a freedom
fighter shall be accorded the benefit only if such freedom fighter did not
have any biological child. In essence, the cause pleaded by the State of
Punjab for cancellation of admission of the petitioner is that, since Shri
Boorh Singh had five daughters, therefore, his having adopted the father of
the petitioner will not result in any benefit to the father of the petitioner as
also the petitioner. The Clause 15(ix) as contained in the Prospectus
encapsulating reservation for children/grandchildren of freedom fighters is
drafted in clear and unequivocal terms. It explicitly provides for 1%
reservation in favour of children/grandchildren of freedom fighters, without
drawing any distinction between adopted and biological
children/grandchildren. The language of the Clause is unambiguous and
leaves no room for interpretative deviation, ensuring that the benefit of
9 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
reservation is equally extended to all the eligible children/grandchildren of
freedom fighters, irrespective of their biological status. This demonstrates
the intent to provide uniform reservation without any discrimination between
the adopted and biological children/grandchildren.
10.1. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to Section
12 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be
referred as 'HAMA 1956'), which reads thus:
"An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive
father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption
and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth
shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the
adoption in the adoptive family;
Provided that -
(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which
vested in him or her before the adoption."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a three Judge Bench in the case
titled as Sitabai and another vs. Ramchandra, 1970 AIR Supreme Court
343 has enunciated that a perusal of the provisions of the HAMA 1956,
especially Section 12 thereof, clearly stipulates that the effect of adoption
under this Act is to bring out severance of all ties of the child given in
adoption, in the family of his or her birth. In other words, the aureate ratio
decidendi of this judgment clearly elucidates that the adopted child,
altogether, ceases to have any ties with the family of his birth "for all
purposes" as per plain language of the Statutory provision contained in
Section 12 of HAMA 1956. Correspondingly, these very ties are
automatically replaced by those created by adoption in the adoptive family.
Thus, the distinction sought to be drawn by the State of Punjab,
on the basis of the beneficiary in question being an adopted child or a
10 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
biological child, is fallacious. Hence, the rationale pleaded by the State of
Punjab, to justify the cancellation of admission of the petitioner is sans merit
and, therefore, deserves rejection.
11. The petitioner, after first round of online counselling, had been
provisionally allocated a seat in the Government Medical College at
Amritsar and was subsequently issued a provisional admission slip dated
03.09.2024 as well. Subsequent thereto, a final admission certificate also
came to be issued in favour of the petitioner. Later on, vide the impugned
communication/letter dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-13), the admission of
the petitioner was cancelled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C)
No.27875 of 2023 decided on 09.01.2024 titled as Aarogyam Association of
Regional Ayush Colleges Gujarat State vs. Desai Sujan Jayrambhai
(Minor) and others; relying upon the dicta of three Judge Bench judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Krishan Sradha vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh (2020) 17 SCC 465; has enounced that a meritorious candidate,
who has been illegally denied admission for no fault of his, can be given
admission in the same academic year, if the facts of a given case so warrant.
Further, it is a settled canon of our jurisprudence that this course of
order/direction by a Constitutional Court is in consonance with the salutary
Principle of Restitutive Relief which has repeatedly met with favour by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. More recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a
judgment tiled as Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas vs. The Ministry of Education
& The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.: 2024 AIR (Supreme
Court) 1924; has reiterated the dicta of an earlier judgment by the Supreme
Court in the Manoj Kumar vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC
Online SC 163; which reads thus:
"21. The second step relates to restitution. This operates in a different
dimension. Identification and application of appropriate remedial
11 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
measures poses a significant challenge to constitutional courts, largely
attributable to the dual variables of time and limited resources.
22. The temporal gap between the impugned illegal or arbitrary action
and their subsequent adjudication by the courts introduces complexities in
the provision of restitution. As time elapses, the status of persons,
possession, and promises undergoes transformation, directly influencing
the nature of relief that may be formulated and granted.
23. The inherent difficulty in bridging the time gap between the illegal
impugned action and restitution is certainly not rooted in deficiencies
within the law or legal jurisprudence but rather in systemic issues inherent
in the adversarial judicial process. The protracted timeline spanning from
the filing of a writ petition, service of notice, filing of counter affidavits,
final hearing, and then the eventual delivery of judgment, coupled with
subsequent appellate procedures, exacerbates delays. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
12. Keeping in view the entirety of the factual matrix of the case in
hand; especially the factum of no fault being attributable to the petitioner, he
pursuing his legal right expeditiously and diligently, the deforciant fault
being solely at the end of the authorities (respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4),
contumacious rationale sought to be employed by the authorities (respondent
Nos.1, 3 and 4) to justify the illegal cancellation of admission of the
petitioner, the stand of the respondent No.2-Nodal Agency (Baba Farid
University of Health Sciences) confirming the legality of admission of the
petitioner and to serve complete nay substantial and restitutive justice; the
impugned order deserves to be quashed.
13. Before parting with this order, another aspect of the lis in hand
craves attention. In discharging its role as a litigant, the State must adopt a
balanced and judicious approach, resisting the temptation to oppose the
claims indiscriminately. The State must exercise due diligence in
distinguishing between a baseless and a legitimate claim. While it is
justified in defending itself against spurious claims, this duty must be
discharged with a sense of responsibility. The Constitutional framework
envisions the State as a Welfare State, which is inherently obligated to act in
12 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
the best interest of its citizens. In litigation involving the State and its
citizens, this welfare-oriented ethos must guide the State's conduct. Unlike
a private litigant, whose sole objective is often to secure a favourable
judgment, the State bears a higher responsibility to ensure that justice is
served, consistent with the principles of fairness and equity.
The Courts across the legal system - this Court being not an
exception - are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless dispute(s)
constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume
time and clog the overburdened infrastructure. Productive resources, which
should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes, are dissipated in
pursuing worthless cause(s). In our country, the State is the largest litigant
today and the huge expenditure involved makes a big draft on the public
exchequer. The present case is an illustration of, how litigations are pursued
on behalf of the State, in a totally mechanical and indifferent fashion. The
proceedings reveal a lack of due diligence, reflective of an apathetic
approach that undermines the principles of responsible governance &
judicial propriety. Such conduct reflects an absence of serious application of
mind, resulting in an unwarranted litigation that burdens the judicial system.
This tendency can be curbed only if the Courts across the system adopt an
institutional approach which penalizes such comportment. The imposition
of exemplary costs, is a necessary instrument, which has to be deployed to
weed out, such an unscrupulous conduct. Ergo, this Court deems it
appropriate to saddle the concerned authorities with costs, which indubitably
ought to be veritable and real time in nature.
14. In view of the above ratiocination, the writ petition in hand is
disposed of, by directing as under:
13 of 14
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011512-DB
(i) The impugned letter/order dated 11.12.2024 (Annexure P-13) is
quashed. Respondents are mandated to take, forthwith, requisite
consequential steps accordingly.
(ii) Respondents are directed to extend latitude to the petitioner,
regarding the aspect of attending Classes/Lectures, in terms of the applicable
Rules/Regulations, including guidelines of National Medical Commission
and the Medical Council of India.
(iii) State of Punjab is directed to pay to the petitioner costs of
Rs.50,000/- within two weeks from today. Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/-
is saddled upon respondents Nos.3 and 4 to be deposited in favour of Poor
Patient's Welfare Fund PGIMER, Chandigarh for having wasted precious
time of this Court which could have been utilized for hearing & deciding
more pressing matters. Liberty is reserved in favour of the State of Punjab to
recover the said costs, in accordance with law, from the concerned erring
Official(s).
(iv) Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands disposed of.
(SUMEET GOEL) (SHEEL NAGU)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
January 27, 2025
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: Yes
14 of 14
