It is definitely most refreshing, reassuring and reinvigorating to learn that the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Samarveer Singh V/s State of Punjab and others in CWP-34334-2024 (O&M) and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025:PHHC:011512-DB that was pronounced as recently as on 27.01.2025 has minced just no words to hold in no uncertain terms most unequivocally that in discharging its role as a litigant, the State must adopt a balanced and judicious approach, resisting the temptation to oppose the claims of citizens indiscriminately. It was held so while quashing an order of Punjab State University whereby the admission that was granted to a medical student under the freedom fighter quota was cancelled despite clear reservation criteria as was given under the prospectus. We need to also note that while quashing the impugned order, the Chandigarh High Court directed the Punjab State Government to pay costs of Rs 50,000/- to the petitioner and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh on the Punjab State authorities who had been instrumental in cancelling the admission. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sumeet Goel for a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “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), whereby respondent No.4 has cancelled the admission of the petitioner in respondent No.3-College for the Session 2024 onwards. Additionally; the petitioner seeks the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of 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 against the petitioner on account of any shortage in attendance.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench envisages in para 2 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “Shorn of the non-essential details; the facts of the case which need recital are that the petitioner (herein) had appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test 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 category. The Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (hereinafter to be referred as ‘BFUHS’)-respondent No.2 (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.
2.3. 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).”
As we see, the Division Bench then stipulates in para 7 stating that, “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.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench notes in para 10 that, “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 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.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench mandates in para 12 holding that, “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.”
Most significantly, most rationally and so also most remarkably, the Division Bench then encapsulates in para 13 the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating that, “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 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.”
Finally and as a corollary, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 14 that, “In view of the above ratiocination, the writ petition in hand is disposed of, by directing as under:
(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.”
In essence, the bottom-line of this most commendable, courageous and creditworthy judgment by the Punjab and Haryana High Court is that State should not act like private party in litigation with citizens and if they still dare to do by which precious time of court is wasted then they would have to shell out huge compensation for it both to the petitioner and to the court as we see in this leading case. It is high time and all State Governments and so also Centre must definitely pay heed to what the Chandigarh High Court has held in this noteworthy judgment as State is itself the biggest litigator in most of the cases due to which so much of precious time of Court is wasted! No denying or disputing it!
Author Bio
