e True Print” SCC Online Web Edtion, © 2022 EAC Puliehing Pv. Ltd Page 1 Saturéay, July 20, 2022 Printed For Saksham Gaikwad, National Law University SCC Ontine Web Eeton pawn: secantine om ‘TruaPrnt™ souroe: Supreme Court Cases, ©2022 Eastern Book Comper. DEEPAK SIBAL 1. PUNJAB UNIVERSIIY 145 (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 145 (Before M. M. Dut ann T. K. THOMMEN, JJ.) Civil Appeal No. 837 of 1989+ DEEPAK SIBAL + Appellant : Versus pee PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER Respondents, And é Civil Appeal No. 838 of 1989 ge Miss RITU KHANNA ~SAppettant : Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER ©.” -" Respondents. Civil Appeals Nos. 837 and 838 of 11989. decided on February 14, 1989" University — Admission — Classification — Admission to, evening, classes of three year LL.B. degree course. — Rule for admission. providing that only regular employees of governmeat/semi government institutions/ affiliated colleges, statutory corporations and goverament companies eligible for such admission — Employees of excluded on grounds of (1) possibility of production of bogus ‘certificates of employment from private employers : (2) imparting legal éducation to employees of government/semi government institutions in’ publ 3) continuity of service for the thfeé: year period of study and (4) el of wastage of seats — Held, grounds: untenable and-the:rule of admission unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Article “4 — “Regular employees” in the context miéané’bona fide émployees — Henee ail bona fide employees entited.to séck admission — Consition of India, Article 14 Constitution of, India “— Article 13 = Severability — When part of the impugned rule, held to be violative. of Article 14, prima facie appears to be unseyerable from the remaining:part of the rule, the entire rule must be struck down, % Constitution of Thdia — Article: 32 — Pleadiugs — Allegations not ies: — Not Considered to be serions enough The objective of startirig evening classes was to accommodate in the evening classes employees in general who-were unable to attend morning lasses because of their employment. In framing the impugned rule of ‘admission the respondents have deviated from this objective. ‘The classifica- “tion ofthe employees of government/semi government institutions etc. by ‘rom’ the Judgment and Order dated September 2. 1988 of the High Court ‘of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. Nos. 6871 and 6485 of 1988 respects© SCC Online Web Eaton, ©2022 EBC Publishing Pvt. Lid SCG Page 9 Saturday, duly 30, 2022 Pnted For: Saksham Gaikwad, National Law University SCC Online Web Eston: p/w sonline com Tue Print’ TPsini™ source: Supreme Cour Cases, © 2022 Easter Book Company. DEEPAR SIBAL ¥. PUNJAB UNIVERSITY (Dutt, J.) 153 by the High Court that the government employees have protection of: Article 311 of the Constitution, which non-government employees do not have and that employees of semi-government institutions are also” on the same footing. oe &® 13. It is apparent that in framing the impugned ruleg, the ~* respondents have deviated from its objective for the starting of evening” classes. The object was to accommodate in the evening (classes employees in general including private employees who wete unuble to attend morning classes because of their employment. Inf this:backdfop of facts, we are to consider the rcasonableness of the ication as contemplated by the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution. 414. It is difficult to accept the contention that the government employees or the employees of semi-government,.and-gther institutions, as mentioned in the impugned rule, stand on atest footing from the employees of private concerns, insofar as the duestida of admission to evening classes is concerned. It is true thatthe service conditions of employees of government/semi-government/ institutions etc. are different, and they may have greater security of Sec¥ice, but t matters for the purpose of admission éh,,the eventing classes. 2 oS, 1s. is, twevers submitted.tia behalf of the respondents that the employees" of private establishments have been left out as it is difficult for the University to verify, whether 6r not a particular candidate is really a regular. cmployee aiid, whether he will have a tenure for at least thrée, years during which’te, will be prosecuting his stndies the.three yéar LL.B. Degree Course. It is submitted that in making the ‘classification, the surrounding circumstances may be taken into Juccount, In support of that Contention, much reliance has been placed “fon the decision of this Court in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice SR.Fendolkar. In that case, it has been observed by Das, C.J. 1. 1989 SCR 279: AIR 1958 SC 538