1991 (11) TMI 267 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity and categorization of reserved seats for children/spouses of Military/Para-Military personnel.
2. Equivalence of Shaurya Chakra to Vir Chakra for admission purposes.
3. Reordering of categories by the High Court.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Categorization of Reserved Seats for Children/Spouses of Military/Para-Military Personnel:

The Chandigarh Administration reserved 15 seats at Punjab Engineering College for children/spouses of Military/Para-Military personnel, categorized into five sub-categories in descending order of priority. The High Court's intervention in reordering these categories was challenged, arguing that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-categorizing without striking down the existing rule or providing adequate reasoning.

2. Equivalence of Shaurya Chakra to Vir Chakra for Admission Purposes:

The High Court directed that Shaurya Chakra should be treated as equivalent to Vir Chakra for admission purposes, allowing the respondent to gain admission under category 1. The Supreme Court found this direction unsupportable, noting that the rule did not include Shaurya Chakra in category 1. The High Court should have struck down the rule if it found it discriminatory and directed the authorities to reframe it.

3. Reordering of Categories by the High Court:

The High Court directed that category 5 (children/spouses of serving Defence Personnel) should be treated as category 4, and vice versa. The Supreme Court found this reordering without reason to be an overreach of the High Court's jurisdiction. The categorization was done by the administration based on valid reasons, and any alteration should have been preceded by striking down the rule and directing a reframing.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:

The Supreme Court emphasized that while the High Court has broad powers under Article 226, it does not act as an appellate authority over rule-making bodies. The High Court's role is supervisory, ensuring authorities remain within their jurisdiction. The High Court should not rewrite rules but can strike down discriminatory rules and direct their reframing.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court found the High Court's directions unsustainable in law but refrained from interfering with the admissions already granted due to subsequent developments. The respondents had already been admitted to the college and had given up seats in other institutions, making it unjust to revoke their admissions. The Supreme Court directed the creation of additional seats to accommodate affected candidates from the waiting list, ensuring fairness without disrupting the academic session.

Observations:

The Supreme Court advised that in similar future cases, the High Court should stay its order for a few weeks to allow for appeals, preventing disruption in admissions and ensuring fairness to all parties involved.

Final Disposition:

The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petitions accordingly, directing the creation of additional seats for waiting list candidates and emphasizing the need for procedural caution in educational admissions.