1. It is unnecessary to advert to the facts in detail because the preliminary objection on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of this writ petition must succeed.
2. The petitioner who avers himself to be an Income-tax practitioner at Amritsar was one of the 473 applicants for admission to the Evening Classes of the newly commenced Law Department of the Guru Nanak University at Amritsar. Admittedly there were only 80 seats in the class abovesaid. He was declined admission on the ground that he was a self-employed person and thus did not full within the category of persons eligible for admission. The relevant extract from annexure R-2/1 which is averred to be an order of the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of his emergency powers given to him under Section 8 of the Guru Nanak University Act 1969 is in these terms:--
'It has been decided that to make best use of limited seats, admission should be allowed to bona fide regular employees, i.e., regular employees of Government, or semi Government institutions of affiliated Colleges, recognised schools and registered corporate bodies, with continuous service of one year or more. Condition of one year if falling short by a small time, may be waived in case of applicants with brilliant academic record.'
3. It is significant to note that no allegation of mala fides or any extraneous consideration are leveled against the respondents on behalf of the petitioner. The express relief claimed is in the following terms:--
'A Writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in the 1st year of LL. B. Evening Class.'
An ancillary prayer was that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to attend the Law Classes provisionally or in the alternative to prohibit the respondents from holding the F. E. L. Classes of the Department. Apart from the above said claims in the writ petition even in the argument in Court the learned counsel did not seek any other relief except that of the mandamus abovesaid. On behalf of the respondents, a preliminary objection has been strenuously pressed that the petitioner has no legal right to be admitted to the Law Classes of the University and further that no writ of mandamus would lie against the respondents directing them to admit a student to the classes of a particular course.
4. The authorities relied upon in support of the preliminary objection are consistent and clear. In Km. Asha Lata v. The principal, Meerut College, Meerut, AIR 1959 All 224, B. R. James, J. expressly posed the question whether a student can secure admission into an Educational Institution as of right and whether such a right could be enforced by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Judge then formulated the arising issue in this form:--
'Now, it cannot be disputed that is this Court the petitioner can succeed only if two conditions are fulfilled: first that she has a legal right o be admitted to the class she wants: and second that there is a legal duty cast on the Principal to admit her.'
Negativing both the abovesaid claims on behalf of the petitioner the learned Judge observed as follows.:--
Assuming for the sake of argument that Mr. Khare's arithmetical calculations are correct, what his plea amounts to is that the Principal should be asked to use his discretion in admitting the petitioner. But, quite plainly, this is not a matter which is amendable to a writ of mandamus, under which writ no authority can be directed to exercise its discretion in a particular manner.'
'It is highly significant that learned counsel have not been able to cite before me a single authority, either of this country or elsewhere, where a school or College has been compelled to admit a student; such matters are deemed to be domestic affairs of the institution concerned and are left to the discretion of the authorities who are charged with the responsibility of managing it.
The petitioner was ill-advised in approaching this court for relief;'
5. Following the above said view in this Court, Tuli, J., in Harish Kumar Jain v. Punjab University, (1970) 72 Pun LR 989 has observed in similar circumstances that no writ of mandamus can issue and further that the order of a Principal declining the admission to a particular student was not a judicial or a quasi-judicial order and was not amenable to the writ of certiorari either. The same view has been expressed by Narula, J. in Deva Singh v. Kurushetra University, (C. W. No. 2955 of 1970 decided on 15-10-1970)=(Reported in AIR 1971 punj 340) and again by Tuli, J. in Gursewak Singh v. Vice-Chancellor, Guru Nanak University, Amritsar, (C. W. No. 2716 of 1970 decided on 11-12-1970 (punj)). Reliance has been placed in the above said judgment on a number of decisions of the other High Courts and in particular to the judgment of Subba Rao, J. (as his Lordship then was) in C. D. Sekkilar v. R. Krishnamoorthy, AIR 1952 Mad 151. Therein almost two decades earlier an identical view stands expressed which apparently has not been deviated from in the Madras High Court.
6. On behalf of the respondents, though pointedly asked, Mr. Goyal cannot cite any authority to the contrary and the position seems to be identical as noticed by James, J. in Km. Asha Lata's case AIR 1959 All 224. It is evident therefore, that in this Court at least there is a string of consistent authorities negativing both the kind of the right claimed by the petitioner as also the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in these circumstances. As at present advised, therefore, the preliminary objection must be sustained in view of the enunciation of the sustained in view of the enunciation of the law in the authorities abovesaid. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed, however, without any other as to costs.
7. Petition dismissed.