(1.) JAGDISH Singh Sanga has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:-

(a) that a writ of certiorari quashing Rule 9 (a) (iii) of Revised Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering (Civil, Mechanical, electrical, Aeronautical, Metallurgical, Electronics and Electrical communication and Production) of Punjab University, Chandigarh, calendar 1970, Volume II, be issued. (b) that a writ of certiorari quashing the instructions requiring eligibility certificate and laying down that no person shall be admitted in an engineering College unless he produces an eligibility certificate and on which instructions respondent No. 2 acted, be issued; and (c) that a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to allow the petitioner to continue with his studies and to regulate his admission, be issued.

(2.) SO far as the facts are concerned, there is no dispute. The petitioner has passed his B. Sc. from the Aligarh University. Thereafter, he sought admission to the B. Sc. Engineering Course in the Guru Nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana. The petition was required to produce an eligibility certificate from the Punjab University, which was not issued to him on the ground that he did not fulfil the requirements of regulation 9 of the Revised Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in engineering (Civil, Mechanical, Electrical, Aeronautical, Metallurgical, Electronics and Electrical Communication and Production) appearing on page 270 of the Punjab University Calendar, 1970, Vol. II. As the petitioner was refused the eligibility certificate, he could not continue his studies in the college with the result that he was forced to file the present petition.

(3.) IT has been contended before me by Mr. S. S. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner, that clause (iii) of Regulation 9 clearly permitted the petitioner, who was a B. Sc. of Aligarh University, to join the B. Sc. Engineering course in the Guru nanak Engineering College, Ludhiana, and that the action of the University in refusing to give an eligibility certificate is against the provisions and spirit of the said clause of Regulation 9. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be proper to reproduce clause (iii) of Regulation 9, which reads as under:

"9. The examination shall be open to a candidate who- (i) xx xx xx (ii) xx xx xx (iii) has passed not less than one semester previous to Part I examination of November/december, the Pre-Engineering in english, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry of the Punjab university, or, subject to the sanction of the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Faculty, any other equivalent examination recognised for the purpose of admission to the bachelor of Science in Engineering course of the University, provided that the candidate must have passed the Pre-engineering or its equivalent examination in the Second division securing at least 50% marks in the aggregate of (a)the main subjects, i. e. English (full subject) Mathematics, physics, Chemistry and (b) including the optional subject. or the B. Sc. examination of the Punjab University in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry obtaining not less than 50% marks in the aggregate of these three subjects and has further passed in English (optional or qualifying);" Mr. S. S. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner, has laid great stress in support of his contention on the words "subject to the sanction of the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Faculty, any other equivalent examination recognised for the purpose of admission to the Bachelor of Science in Engineering course of the university. " After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first part of clause (iii) does not apply to the case of students who have passed b. Sc. from some outside University. This clause only applies to those students who have done their Pre-Engineering or any other equivalent examination recognised for the purpose of admission to the Bachelor of Science Engineering Course of the university. The words, on which reliance is placed, also relate to cases of the Pre-Engineering students. It does not apply to the students who have passed their b. Sc. examination. For the students, who have passed the B. Sc. examination, second part of clause (iii) is applicable. From the second part of clause (iii), it is evident that only the students, who have passed B. Sc. examination of the Punjab university, are entitled to admission to the B. Sc. Engineering examination. Any student, who has passed B. Sc. examination from any other University is not entitled to appear in the B. Sc. Engineering examination under this Regulation. The petitioner has failed to show that Regulation 9, clause (iii) is applicable to him. As i have already observed, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit and is rejected.

(4.) IT is also sought to be argued by Mr. S. S. Kang, learned counsel for the petitioner, that Regulation 9 clause (iii) is unconstitutional inasmuch as it does not permit the Bachelors of Science of the other Universities to appear in the examination of B. Sc. Engineering in Punjab University. I am afraid I am unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The University has made this regulation prescribing qualifications permitting the students to appear in B. Sc. Engineering examination. Merely this fact that Bachelors of Science of the other universities are not permitted to appear in the examination of B. Sc. Engineering in the Punjab University would be no ground to hold that this Regulation is unconstitutional.

(5.) NO other point has been urged.

(6.) FOR the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.