No quota provision in PU migration policy: HC

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 26

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that there is no provision for reservation in the Panjab University’s migration policy or scheme. 

The High Court also virtually rapped the university for being indecisive in the case of four law students seeking migration. 

A Division Bench held that dilly-dallying resulted in a piquant situation, where the university was directed to admit the students to the fourth semester. The Bench of Justice Mahesh Grover and Justice Shekher Dhawan added that the problem was created by the the university itself, as it did not decide the matter for an inordinate period.

The assertion on the appeal filed by Panjab University and another appellant against Harsh Behal and other respondents came after the counsel for the university contended that the direction by the Single Bench to admit the students to the fourth semester was impermissible as the policy permitted only migration to third and fifth semester.

The Bench was told that the four students studying law in Panjab University’s regional centre at Mukhtsar and Hoshiarpur were desirous of migrating to Chandigarh for completing their LL.B degree course. 

The university invited applications for the admission by way of migration for the 2016-17 sessions. An interview by the Board of Control of Department of Laws followed before a provisional merit list was prepared. But the petitioners could not make the grade in the general category. Some other students, lower in merit, however, gained admission following the benefit of reservation

After their representations went unheeded, the action was challenged by the writ petitioners before the Single Bench. Taking up the petition, the Single Judge expressed that there was no provision for reservation in the migration policy/scheme.

Dismissing the appeal, the Division Bench asserted: “As far as migration is concerned, there is absolutely no provision for reservation that has been brought to our notice.” 

The Bench added that the university Registrar, summoned during the course of hearing, “candidly conceded” the same. He said such practice was not in existence and reservation was resorted to for the first time.

Before parting with the order, the Bench asserted: “If that be so, we are afraid we cannot find any fault with the reasoning of the Single Judge where the criteria of reservation applied to migration has been deprecated and negated. We would re-affirm the findings in the absence of any provision to the contrary.”