PARMENDER KUMAR & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

               [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1065


               PARMENDER KUMAR & ORS.                             A
                             v.
               STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 9717 of 2011)

                    NOVEMBER 14, 2011                             B
        [ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND
             SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]

     Education/Educational Institutions - Admission in the
Post-Graduate or Diploma Courses in medicine - Conditions         C
relating to admission as indicated in the prospectus -
Modification in the conditions by the State Government after
declaration of result and preparation of select list - Power of
- Held: If such Government Orders were already in force when
the prospectus was published, they would certainly have a         D
bearing on the admission process - However, once the
results had been declared and a select list had been
prepared, it was not open to the State Government to alter the
terms and conditions just a day before counselling was to
begin, so as to deny the candidates, who had already been         E
selected, an opportunity of admission in the aforesaid
courses - Benefits of admission in the reserved category is
the result of the policy adopted by the State Government to
provide for candidates from the reserved category -
Appellants having been selected on the basis of merit, in         F
keeping with the results of the written examination, the
submission that such admissions in the reserved category will
have to be made keeping in mind the necessity of upholding
the standard of education in the institution, cannot be
accepted.                                                         G

    Appellants-members of the State Civil Medical
Services, are candidates for admission to the Post-
Graduate Courses conducted by respondent No.2

                            1065                                  H
    1066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 14 (AODL.) S.C.R.


A University against the Haryana Civil Medical Services
  (HCMS) reserved quota As per the prospectus, a
  common entrance examination was held for candidates
  who applied for admissions against seats reserved for the
  HCMS quota as also seats under open merit category, the
B results were declared and counselling was held. Clauses
  5 and 6 of the prospectus provided that HCMS doctors
  who wanted to join the PG-courses against the HCMS
  reserved quota, required NOC in terms of Government of
  Haryana instructions dated 5th December, 2008; and
c three years regular service with successful completion of
  probation period. On the basis thereof, the appellants
  were allowed to participate in the selection process, their
  names were published in the merit list dated 3rd March,
  2011 and were admitted. However, on 31st March, 2011,
  the Government of Haryana issued an instruction that
0
  changed the eligibility conditions whereby three years
  regular service was changed to five years and applied the
  same to the process of admission which had already
  been set in motion on the basis of the previous
  Government instructions, and that too just one day
E before the date of counseling. Aggrieved, the appellants
  filed a writ petition. The Single Judge of the High Court
  passed an interim order to the effect that in the meantime
  the appellants would be permitted to take part in the
  counselling as against the HCMS quota candidates,
F subject to their own risk and responsibility; and that the
  said order would not confer any equitable right in favour
  of the appellants. The Division Bench upheld the order
  of the Single Judge of the High Court.

G      The question which arose for consideration in these
  appeals is whether the State Government had any
  jurisdiction and/or authority to alter the conditions
  relating to admission in the Post-Graduate or Diploma
  Courses in the different disciplines in medicine which had
H earlier been indicated in the prospectus, once the
     PARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF             1067
              HARYANA & ORS.
examination for such admission had been conducted and      A
the results had been declared and a select list had also
been prepared on the basis there.of.

    Disposing of the appeals, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. The appellants contended that once the B
 process of selection of candidates for admission to the
 Post-Graduate and Diploma Courses had been
 commenced on the basis of the prospectus, no change
 could, thereafter, be effected by Government Orders to
 alter the provisions contained in the prospectus. If such C
 Government Orders were already in force when the
 prospectus was published, they would certainly have a
 bearing on the admission process, but once the results
 had been declared and a select list had been prepared,
 it was not open to the State Government to alter the terms D
 and conditions just a day before counselling was to
 begin, so as to deny the candidates, who had already
been selected, an opportunity of admission in the
aforesaid courses. The benefits of admission in the
reserved category are many, but the same is the result E
of the policy adopted by the State Government to provide
for candidates from the reserved category and since the
appellants had been selected on the basis of merit, in
keeping with the results of the written examination, the
submission that such admissions in the reserved F
category will have to be made keeping in mind the
necessity of upholding the standard of education in the
institution, cannot be accepted. The appellants have
shown their competence by being selected on the basis
of their results in the written examination. The submission G
that the NOCs had been given to the appellants from the
open category, also does not appeal to this Court, since
the appellants were candidates in respect of the reserved
category of the HCMS. [Para 23] [1079~E-H; 1080-A-D]
                                                           H
    1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R


A       State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3
    SCC 436 : 2011 (2 ) SCR 704 - distinguished.

        1.2 The judgment and order of the Division Bench
  of the High Court is set aside. However, the counselling
  process in these appeals was to be conducted on 6th
8
  April, 2011 and the academic session was to commence
  on 10th May, 2011. In other words, the appellants have
  already lost about six months of the courses in question.
  As was observed in Dr. Vinay Rampal's case, the sands
  of time had run out which is inevitable in judicial process.
C Following the same reasoning, as adopted in Dr. Vinay
  Rampa/'s case, it is directed that the appellants shall be
  admitted in the Post-Graduate or Diploma Courses, for
  which they have been selected, for the new academic
  year without any further test or selection. [Para 24] [1080-
D D-G]
        Vinay Rampa/ (Dr.) Vs. State of J & K & Ors. (1984) 1
    sec 160 - relied on.
       State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Dr. Viney Kumar Khullar &
E Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 481: 2010 (13 ) SCR 733; Rajiv Kapoor
  & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 115: 2000
  (2) SCR 629; Union of Public Service Commission Vs.
  Gaurav Dwivedi & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 180: 1999 ( 3 ) SCR
  649; Amardeep Singh Sahota Vs. State of Punjab (1993) 4
F SLR 673 (FB)

                       Case Law Reference:
        2010 (13) SCR 733        Referred to.     Para 11, 13
G       (1984) 1 sec 1so         Referred to.     Para 13
        2000 (2) SCR 629        Referred to.      Para 14
        1999 ( 3 ) SCR 649       Referred to.     Para 16
        2011 (2 ) SCR 704       Distinguished.    Para 23
H
      PARM ENDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                      1069
                HARYANA & ORS.

     (1993) 4 SLR 673 (FB)         Referred to.        Para 21         A

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9717 of 2011.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 2.6.2011 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 983 of              B
2011.

                               WITH

C.A. Nos. 9718, 9719, 9720, 9721 & 9722 of 2011.
                                                                       c
      Altaf Ahmad, P.S. Patwalia, Vikas Singh, K.K. Tyagi,
lftekhar Ahmad, P. Narasimhan, Dr. Kailash Chand, Jagjit Singh
Chhabra, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, Mukesh Singh, Shekhar
Kumar, Dr. Monika Gusain, Dharam Raj Ohlan, Atishi Dipankar
for the appearing parties.                                             D

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Six Special Leave Petitions,
being SLP(C}No.15974/2011, SLP(C)No.16075/2011,
SLP(C)No. 16346/2011, SLP(C)Nos.16228-30/2011, have                    E
been taken up together for hearing, as they involve common
questions of fact and law relating to the eligibility of the Special
Leave Petitioners, who are members of the Haryana Civil
Medical Services, to be admitted to the Post-Graduate
Courses conducted by the Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health          F
Sciences, Rohtak, Respondent No.2 herein, against the
reserved quota for such candidates.

     2. Leave granted.
                                                                       G
    3. Before proceeding further, l.A.Nos.4 and 5 of 2011, filed
by Dr. Rajeev Kumar and 10 others in SLP(C)No.1597 4 of
2011. for impleadment in these proceedings as respondents,
are allowed.         ·

     4. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the facts       H
    1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A from SLP(C)No.15974/2011, filed by Dr. Parmender Kumar
  and others. As indicated hereinabove, the Appellants in all
  these appeals are candidates for admission to the Post-
  Graduate Courses conducted by the Respondent No.2
  University against the Haryana Civil Medical Services (HCMS)
B reserved quota. As provided for by the prospectus dated 6th
  January, 2011, a common entrance examination was held for
  candidates who applied for admissions against seats reserved
  for the HCMS quota, as also seats under open merit category.
  The prospectus sets out the total number of seats in each
c course and the seats earmarked for the HCMS reserved
  category and also in respect of open merit. According to the
  prospectus, seats available for the Post-Graduate Course in
  the different disciplines indicate a total number of 145 seats
  available, of which 73 seats were reserved for the All India
D quota, 29 seats were reserved for the HCMS reserved quota
  and 43 seats were reserved for the open merit category. As
  per the prospectus, the last date of receipt of application was
  24th January, 2011 within 5 p.m. The common entrance
  examination was held as per schedule on 2nd March, 2011 and
  results were declared on 3rd March, 2011. Counselling was
E scheduled for 6th April, 2011 and the academic session was
  due to commence on 10th May, 2011.

       5. The eligibility criteria laid down in the prospectus for
  candidates appearing in the entrance examination in respect
F of the HCMS reserved quota was included in Clause 5 of the
  prospectus, which reads as follows :

        "5. HCMS doctors sponsored by the State Govt. will be
        eligible to appear in the entrance examination against the
        reserved seats for this category, provided they submit the
G
        application through their employer or submit their
        applications for getting NOCs to the department/State
        Government w.ell in time and the Department/State Govt.
        will ensure that the NOCs where ever eligible, are issued
        before the date of 1st Counselling i.e. 06.04.2011."
H
      PARM ENDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                   1071
       HARYANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

        6. What is of importance is the method of selection and      A
admission which was made a part of the prospectus, wherein,
in Clause 6 relating to determination of merit, in Sub-Clause
(iii), it was indicated as follows :

    "6.(iii) The conditions for NOCs fixed by' the Govt. of          B
    Haryana vide letter No.2/123/05/1-HB-I dated 5.12.2008 for
    HCMS doctors who want to join PG-courses are given at
    Annexure-D. (However, latest Govt. instructions issued
    from time to time will be followed)."

     7. For, as per the aforesaid Sub-Clause, HCMS doctors           C
who wanted to join the PG-courses against the HCMS reserved
quota, required NOC in terms of Government of Haryana
instructions dated 5th December, 2008. As per the said
instructions, one of the eligibility conditions was contained in
Clause 3, which is extracted hereinbelow :                           D

    "3. The basic condition for eligibility is three years regular
    service with successful completion of probation period out
    of which two years service is essential in rural areas for
    both reserved and open seats in the case of HCMS                 E
    doctors. However, the condition of rural service will not be
    applicable in the case of a member of the HMES."

     8. The Appellants were allowed to participate in the
selection process on the basis of the above criterion and as
per the cases made out in the several appeals, their names           F
were published in the merit list dated 3rd March. 2011. From
the said list it will appear that out of the total number of 38
candidates in the HCMS quota in the M.D./M.S./P.G. Diploma
course and 3 candidates in the MDs course, all the Appellants
in the various appeals stood admitted along with similar             G
candidates.

    9. However, on 31st March, 2011, the Government of
Haryana issued an instruction, which was circulated on its
website on 5th April, 2011, that changed the eligibility             H
    1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   conditions and applied the same to the process of admission
    which had already been set in motion on the basis of the
    Government instructions dated 5th December, 2008, and that
    too just one day before the date of counselling, i.e., 6th April,
    2011. The amended provision is extracted hereinbelow :
B
         "MBBS doctors will be eligible for doing Post-Graduate
         Course, both degree as well as Diploma after completion
         of 5 years of regular satisfactory service including 2 years
         of probation, out of which 3 years service should be in one
         of the District Hospital or a Sub-Divisional Hospital and 2
c        years in rural area institutions. Only the persons fulfilling this
         condition will be eligible for sponsorship against reserved
         seat in PGIMS Rohtak or other Government institution and
         against the open seats in the Government Colleges of
         Haryana or similar Government institutions anywhere else
D        in the country."

       10. It is the changed conditions relating to admission in
  the Post-Graduate Courses which resulted in the filing of CWP
  No.6168 of 2011, by Dr. Parmender Kumar and others and
E other writ petitions were filed by the other Appellants in the
  Punjab and Haryana High Court. Upon consideration of the
  original conditions relating to eligibility for admission in the
  Post-Graduate Course and the changes effected by the
  Government instruction dated 31st March, 2011, the learned
F Single Judge of the High Court by order dated 6th April, 2011,
  while listing the matter on 13th May, 2011, passed an interim
  order to the effect that in the meantime the Appellants would
  be permitted to take part in the counselling as against the
  HCMS quota candidates, subject to their own risk and
G responsibility. It was made clear that the said order would not
  confer any equitable right in favour of the Appellants. It was
  further directed that the result of the counselling of the
  Appellants should be kept in a sealed cover and would be
  subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

H       11.Aggrieved by the interim order passed by the learned
     PARM ENDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                     1073
      HARYANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

Single Judge, Dr. Parmender Kumar and others filed Letters            A
Patent Appeal Nos.983 and 995 of 2011, before the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appeals
were disposed of by the Division Bench by its order dated 2nd
June, 2011, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge
rejecting the challenge to the new policy relating to grant of        B
NOC, on the ground that it was evident that the State had every
right to prescribe a policy for the grant of NOC, especially when
it was dealing with the cases of sponsorship of in-service
candidates for higher studies. The logic behind the same is that
the State was committed to bear the expenses for the selected         c
HCMS candidates, as such incumbents were entitled to full pay
and the period spent by them in pursuing these courses was
to be treated as having been spent on duty. The Division Bench
also noted that the underlying principle in accepting the
prospectus as correct is that the State does not indulge in           0
nepotism, nor has any allegation of mala fide being made, nor
are they even visible. The Division Bench observed that the
Appellants had not been excluded from the zone of
consideration, but they had been denied consideration in
HCMS category.- The-BivistorrBench also took note of the fact         E
that in the prospectus it had been made clear that NOC was
to be issued by the State as per its policy applicable from time
to time and as a result even if the Appellants passed the test
for admission to the Post-Graduate Courses, no vested right
accrued to them to either get the NOC from the State of
Haryana or to get full salary during the period of Post-Graduate      F
studies. The Division Bench distinguished the decision of this
Court in State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Dr. Viney Kumar Khullar
& Ors. [(2010) 13 SCC 481], by observing that provisional NOC
had already been issued before the policy was revised, which
was the distinguishing feature of the judgment in its applicability   G
to the present case.

    12. Appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned
Senior Advocate, as also Mr. K.K. Tyagi, learned Advocate,
questioned the decision of the learned Single Judge, as well          H
    1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A as the Division Bench of the High Court, on the ground that once
  a criterion had been laid down in the prospectus, the
  Respondents concerned had no authority to alter the same once
  the process under the said prospectus had already
  commenced and a select list of candidates had also been
B published. Change of such conditions, one day prior to
  counselling as to the discipline to be pursued, was to the
  prejudice of the candidates who had been selected, as they had
  been selected on the basis of the unamended prospectus. Mr.
  Ahmad submitted that one could possibly have accepted the
c change in the criterion for admission, if it had been made before
  the prospectus was acted upon, but once the prospectus was
  acted upon, the entire process of admission to the Post-
  Graduate or Diploma Courses would be governed by the said
  prospectus and any change and/or alteration of the conditions
0 of the prospectus thereafter, would seriously prejudice the
  candidates who had already been selected.

       13. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision of
  this Court in Dr. Viney Kumar Khullar's case (supra), wherein,
  while dealing with almost a similar case altering the terms and
E conditions for selection, this Court held that besides the earlier
  circulars, the Amendment Circular ought to have been
  mentioned in the prospectus. It was observed that nothing
  prevented the Government from stating that the NOC should be
  subject to the conditions mentioned in the Circular dated 13th
F May, 1996, as amended by Circular dated 30th July, 2007,
  which was issued after the 2007 admissions and was sought
  to be made applicable for the first time in respect of 2008
  admissions. Consequently, the candidates for the 2008
  admissions would have no knowledge about the Amendment
G Circular dated 30th July, 2007, unless it was mentioned in the
  prospectus. This Court further held that the candidates would
  have bona fide proceeded on the basis of eligibility for the
  NOC, in terms of the Government Circular dated 13th May,
  1996. Learned counsel submitted that a similar view had been
H taken by this Court in Vinay Rampa/ (Dr.) Vs. State of J & K
      PARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                  1075
       HARYANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

 & Ors. [(1984) 1 SCC 160], wherein this Court had held that      A
since no reference had been made in the advertisement about
the subsequent Government Order dated 23rd March, 1979, it
was the requirement set out in the advertisement which should
have provided the basis for selection and eligibility for
admission of the petitioner therein.   ·                          a
      14. Mr. Altaf Ahmad pointed out that in yet another case,
 namely, Rajiv Kapoor & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.
 ((2000) 9 SCC 115), this Court had observed that the mess that
had occurred leading to the litigation seemed to be more on
account of the inept drafting and publication of the prospectus   C
by the University and not properly carrying out the binding
orders of the Government and of too many orders passed from
time to time, being allowed to stand piecemeal independently.
In fact, it was also observed that the Government would do well
in future to publish at the beginning of every academic year,     D
even before inviting applications, a compendium of the entire
scheme and basis for selection carrying out amendments up
to date and the prospectus also, specifically adopting them as
part of the prospectus, to avoid confusion in the matter of
selection, every year.                                            E

     15. Mr. Ahmad submitted that since the subsequent
alteration of the criterion for admission to the Post-Graduate· '
and Diploma Courses in the various disciplines had not been
included in the prospectus for admissions to the current year, F
no reliance can be placed on the same and the submissions
made on that behalf are liable to be rejected.

     16. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Advocate,
appearing for the added respondent Nos.2 to 11, on the other
hand, submitted that the object of directing NOC to be obtained   G
by the candidate before he could be allowed to join a new
session was that the choice had to be made extremely carefully
before such candidates would get full salary for the period
dµring which they were to pursue Post-Graduate studies and
they would also be deemed to be in service during the entire      H
    1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A period. Mr. Patwalia submitted that prior to the amendment in
    the prospectus, Clause 3 thereof provided that the basic
    conditions for eligibility would be 3 years' regular service, with
    successful completion of probation period, out of which 2 years'
    service was essential in the rural areas. An exception was
8   made in the case of a candidate who was a meml;>er of HCMS.
    The said criteria was altered by the Government Instruction
    dated 5th December, 2008, whereby it was indicated that
    MBBS members would be eligible for doing the Post-Graduate
    and Diploma Courses after completion of 5 years of regular
C   service in place of 3 years, as stipulated earlier, including 2
    years of probation, out of which 3 years of service would have
    to be one of the District Hospitals or the Sub-Divisional
    Hospital and 2 years in a rural area institution. Mr. Patwalia
    submitted that the said change was not a change in regard to
    the criterion of eligibility for admission, but it was a change of
D   conditions of service as the Government always has the power
    to make such changes. In this regard, reliance has been placed
    by Mr. Patwalia on two decisions of this Court in i) Union of
    Public Service Commission Vs. Gaurav Dwivedi & Ors.
    [(1999) 5 SCC 180] and (ii) State of Orissa & Anr. Vs. Mamata
E   Mohanty [(2011) 3 SCC 436], in which it was emphasized that
    the necessity of possession of prescribed qualification by
    teachers, was extremely crucial for an educational institution,
    since excellence of instruction provided by an educational
    institution mainly depends directly on excellence of teaching
F   staff. Hence, unless teachers themselves possess a good
    academic record, the standard of education can neither be
    maintained nor enhanced.

       17. Mr. Patwalia also referred to the decision of this Court
G in Rajiv Kapoor's case (supra), in which the question of the right
  of in-service candidates to be admitted from the reserved
  category of Post-Graduate Courses was under consideration.
  It was held that in regard to the method and procedure to be
  followed in selection from amongst HCMS candidates, the
H Government Orders providing procedure other than those
      PARM ENDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                    1077
       HARYANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

contained in the prospectus were quite valid, since it had power     A
to issue such orders and the prospectus could not prevail in
exclusion of the Government Orders. The learned Judges
observed that both should be so construed that inter se merits
of the in-service candidates were assessed on the basis of their
credentials and performance in service. It was categorically         B
held that even if the latest Government Order was issued after
declaration of results of the entrance examination, the earlier
Order would still be required to be complied with.

     18. Mr. Patwalia submitted that in view of the aforesaid        c
decision, the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

     19. On behalf of the State of Haryana, Mr. Vikas Singh,
learned Senior Advocate, pointed out that the. NOCs, which
were given by the Government on· 4th April, 2011, had been
given to the candidates from the resgrved HCMS category for          D
5 years, while NOC was given for 3 years to the candidates
from the open category. As far as the Appellants are concerned,
they were given NOCs for the open category and not for the
reserved category and, hence, their claim for being considered
for admission in the reserved HCMS category was without any          E
basis and was liable to be rejected.

      20. From the facts as disclosed, the only question which
emerges for decision in these appeals is whether the State
Government had any jurisdiction and/or authority to alter th~
conditions relating to admission in the Post-Graduate or             f
Diploma Courses in the different disciplines in medicine which
had earlier been indicated in the prospectus, once the
examination for such admission had been conducted and the
results had been declared and a select list had also been
prepared on the basis thereof. In other words, once the process      G
of selection had started on the basis of 1 the terms and
conditions included in the prospectus, was it within the
competence of the State Government to effect changes in the
criterion relating to eligibility for admission, when not only had
the process in terms of the prospectus been started, but also        H
          1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


  A when counselling was to be held on the very next day, which
    had the effect of eliminating many of the candidates from
    getting an opportunity of pursuing the Post-Graduate or
    Diploma Courses in the reserved HCMS category.

      .       21. Although, Mr. Patwalia had placed a good deal of
  8
       reliance on the decision of this Court in Rajiv Kapoor's case
       (supra), wherein, the facts were almost similar to the facts of
       this case, there is a singular distinction betweien the two. It has,
       no doubt, been held by this Court in Rajlv Kapoor's case
  ,.. (supra), that the High Court fell into serious emor in sustaining
 '" the claim of the petitioners before the High Court that selection
       and admissions for the course in question had to be only in
      terms of the stipulations contained in Chapter V of the
      pro..-:;pectus issued by the University. It was further held that such
      an er~or had been committed by assuming that the Government.·
ID
      had no authority to issue any directions laying down any criteria
      other th~n the one contained in the prospectus and that the
      marks obtained in the written entrance examination alone
      constituted proper assessment of the merit performance of the
      candidates applying for selection and admission. This Court
 E also observed that the High Court in allowing the writ petitions
      had purported to follow an earlier judgment of the Full Bench
      of the same High Court reported in Amarde1ep Singh Sahota
      Vs. State of Punjab ((1993) 4 SLR 673 (FB)], which, in fact,
      did not doubt the competency or authority of the Government
 F to stipulate procedure for admission relating to courses in
      professional colleges, partieufarly, in respect of reserved
      categor1 of seats. This Court also observed that ultimately the
      Fu.I.I Bench had directed in the case decided by it that selections
      for admission should be finalised in the light of the criteria
 G specified in t' e Government Orders already· in force and the
      prospectus, after ignoring the offending notification introducing
      a change at a later stage.

        22. If the aforesaid decision of this Court is to be relied
    upon, it, in fact, favours. the case of the Appellants, since, while
  H observing that selections or admissions for the Courses in
      PARMENDER KUMAR & ORS. v. STATE OF                      1079
       HAR-YANA & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
 question will have to be effected only in terms of the stipulation   A
 contained in the prospectus issued by.the University, the orders
 issued by the Government from time to time would also have
 to be taken into consideration. An exception was, however,
 made by this Court in relation to orders which came to be
 issued after the declaration of results ,9f the written entrance     B
 examination. In that context, it was obssrved as follows :

      "............ The further ~rror seems to be in omitting to
      notice the fact that the orders dated 21-5-1997, which
      came to be issued after the declaration of results of written
      entrance examination, even if eschewed from consideration       C
      the orders dated 20-3-1996 and 21-2-1997 passed in
      continuation of the orders of the earlier years, continued
    • to hold the field, since the orders dated 21-5-1997 were
      only in continuation thereof."
                                                                     D
       23. As has also been pointed out hereinbefore, this Court
  took notice of the fact that the Full Bench, on whose decision
  the High Court had relied, ultimately directed that the selections
  for admission should be finalised in the light of the criteria
  specified in the Government Orders already in force and the E
  prospectus, "after ignoring the offending notification
  introducing a change at a later stage." In fact, this· is whai has
  been contended on behalf of the Appellants that once the
  process of selection of candidates for admission to the Post-
  Graduate and Diploma Courses had been commenced on the F
  basis of the prospectus, no change could, thereafter, be
  effected by Government Orders to alter the provisions contained
  in the prospectus. If such Government Orders were already in
  force when the prospectus was published, they would certainly
  have a bearing oh the admission process, but once the results
  had been declar~d and a select list had been prepared, it was G
. not open to· t~ State Government to alter the terms and
  conditions just~ day before counselling was to begin, so as to
  deny the candidates, who had already been selected, an
  opportunity of admission in the aforesaid courses. It is no doubt H
    1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A true that the benefits of admission in the reserved category are
  many, but the same is the result of the policy adopted by the
  State Government to provide for candidates from the reserved
  category and since the Appellants had been selected on the
  basis of merit, in keeping with the results of the written
B examination, the submission made by Mr. Patwalia thalsuch
  admissions in the reserved category will have to be made
  keeping in mind the necessity of upholding the standard of
  education in the institution, as was observed in Mamata
  Mohanty's case (supra), is not applicable in the facts of this
c case. The Appellants have shown their competence by being
  selected on the basis of their results in the written examination.
  The submission made by Mr. Vikas Singh for the State, that
  the NOCs had been given to the Appellants from the open
  category, also does not appeal to us, since the Appellants were
  candidates in respect of the reserved category of the HCMS.
0
       24. We, accordingly, have no hesitation in allowing the
  appeals and setting aside the judgment and order of the
  Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
  However, we appear to be facing the same problem, as was
E faced by this Court in Dr. Vinay Rampa/'s case (supra). The
  counselling process in these appeals was to be conducted on
  6th April, 2011 and the academic session was to commence
  on 10th May, 2011. In other words, the Appellants have already
  lost about six months of the courses in question. As was
F observed in Dr. Vinay Rampa/'s case (supra), the sands of time
  had run out which is inevitable in judicial process. Following the
  same reasoning, as was adopted in the aforesaid case, we
  direct that the Appellants shall be admitted in the Post-
  Graduate or Diploma Courses, for which they have been
G selected, for the new academic year without any further test or
  selection.

        25. The Appeals are disposed of accordingly. There will
    be no order as to costs.

H N.J.                                       Appeals disposed of.