IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2890 of 2024 Decided on 05th May 2025 Sukriti Sood and another …Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Happy Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. That the decision taken by respondent No.2 in the Standing Committee of the Department on 28.02.2022 as per Annexure P-8, counseling notice dated 26.08.2022 Annexure P-12, minutes of meeting held on 26.08.2022 by the departmental council communicated on 19.09.2022 to the petitioner No. 1 as per Annexure P-13, the decision taken by respondent no. 2 on 14.11.2022 and further approved by the respondent no.3 dated 18.11.2022 and communicated to the petitioner on 22.11.2022 as per Annexure P-17 and the decision taken by Executive Council on 28.04.2023 and 2 communicated to petitioners on 29.01.2024 as per Annexure P-28 may please be ordered to be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. b. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the certificate issued by respondent no.1 on dated 05.01.2022 in favour of the petitioner no.2 for the purpose of seeking admission of petitioner no.1 in Ph.D. Course in Chemistry Department against supernumerary seat as dependent ward of university working employee without entrance test in pursuance of the notification dated 28th August, 2021 and this benefit may be extended to the petitioner no.1 as similarly situate candidate has been granted admission in Ph.D. Computer Science Department under ward category of university working employees without entrance test. c. That the complete and entire record pertaining to the admission made against ward/child of university working employee without Entrance Test may please be summoned to this Hon’ble Court to satisfy the judicial conscience of this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Petitioner No.1 applied for admission through online process for the Ph.D programme in the subject of Chemistry, lastly in terms of admission notice dated 21.07.2022, Annexure P-9. She applied for admission against a supernumerary seat in her capacity as wife of a working employee of the respondent- University, i.e., petitioner No.2. In terms of notification dated 28.08.2021 (Annexure P-2), the Executive Council of the 3 Himachal Pradesh University decided to reserve one supernumerary seat in each Ph.D course for admission in respect of Wards of University working employees with the regular admission schedule without entrance test with immediate effect. 3. As per record, the case of the petitioner was rejected as per proceedings dated 26.08.2022, which are available at page 71 of the paper book on the ground that she was ineligible. 4. To cut the controversy short, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she cannot be considered for admission against a supernumerary post reserved for the Wards of a working employee of the respondents-University, as the wife of a serving employee cannot be construed to be a Ward. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents appended with the petition and while referring to the Prospectus issued by various other Universities, he submitted that wife has to be 4 construed as Ward of a serving employee. Learned Senior Counsel referred to communication dated 09.05.2023 on record, addressed by the Registrar of the respondent-University to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the subject “clarification regarding eligibility of dependent sons/daughters and wife of employee” for admission under the supernumerary quota (Page 144 of the paper book) and by referring to the response thereto, which is also on record at the back side of Page 144, addressed by Secretary Education to Director Higher Education dated 13.07.2023, submitted that Director Higher Education had mentioned to Secretary Education that in terms of the letter of Department of Personnel dated 05.09.2010, the wife may be considered as Ward of the University employee. 6. Accordingly, he argued that the act of the respondents of rejecting the candidature of petitioner No.1 and not construing wife to be a Ward, is palpably bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law. He prayed that the petition be allowed and the reliefs as prayed for be granted in favour of the petitioners. 5 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University submitted that after the Himachal Pradesh University sought necessary clarification from the State Government vide letter dated 09.05.2023, what respondent-University received from Secretary Education was communication dated 01.11.2023, vide which, the University was called upon to take a decision at its own level, being an Autonomous Body and thereafter, vide Annexure P-28 dated 29.01.2024, the matter when placed before the Executive Council, was decided by the Executive Council by holding that benefit under the category of Ward can only be extended to the children of employees of the Himachal Pradesh University and Spouse will not be considered under the said category. 8. Accordingly, he argued that as the University does not treats a spouse to be a Ward and otherwise also, as it ordinarily means children, therefore, there is no infirmity in the decision of the respondents-University. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well the 6 documents on record. 10. The moot issue which this Court has to decide in this case is as to whether a spouse can be construed to be a Ward of a serving employee of Himachal Pradesh University for the purpose of admission to Ph.D course against a supernumerary seat? 11. As per Black’s Law Dictionary the word “ward” has been defined as under:- A person, especially a child or incompetent, placed by the Court under the care and supervision of a guardian or conservator. 12. “Spouse” has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition as one’s husband or wife, and “surviving spouse” is one of the married pair, who outlives the other. 13. The reservation or admission in terms of Annexure P-2, notification dated 28.08.2021, which stands approved for admission to Ph.D. Degree against a supernumerary seat is in respect of the Wards of University working employees. It is the said University itself, which in terms of Annexure P-28, has taken a call that ‘spouse’ shall not be considered under the category of Ward of University working employees and the 7 category of Ward benefit can only be extended to the children of employees of Himachal Pradesh University. As the respondents-University is the author of notification dated 28.08.2021 and in terms thereof, even as per the University, ‘spouse’ is not to be considered under the category of Ward of University working employees, this Court neither can nor should substitute its view qua the interpretation of the word ‘Ward’ with that of the respondent-University, for the reason that the construction of the word ‘Ward’ meaning children of employees of the Himachal Pradesh University, is a prudent construction. 14. Besides this, this Court is of the considered view that by no stretch of imagination, the spouse can be said to be the Ward of that person. Petitioner has placed on record Prospectus issued by certain Universities, which construe the spouse to be a beneficiary of reservation, which are meant for the Wards of the serving employees of that University. But, then, said Prospectus is not binding on Himachal Pradesh University. 8 15. Before parting, this Court would also like to refer to the letter of the Department of Personnel, which has been mentioned in the communication at the backside of Page-144 of the paper book. It is on the basis of letter dated 05.09.2010, issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh that Director, Higher Education submitted to Secretary, Education that in this case, the wife can be construed to be a Ward of the University working employee. It appears that while making this recommendation, Director, Higher Education completely misread the contents of the letter of the Department of Personnel, which are Page 151 of the paper book. A perusal of communication dated 15.09.2010, which is on the subject of eligibility of dependent sons/daughters or wives of Ex-servicemen for the posts reserved for Ex-servicemen and certificate/affidavit to be produced by them for their consideration against the posts reserved for Ex-servicemen, demonstrates that what is contained therein is that it was decided by the Government that henceforth, no dependent wards, i.e., sons/daughters or wives 9 of such Ex-servicemen, who have been rehabilitated with Central and other State/Union Territory Governments etc., will be considered for appointment on posts reserved for Ex- servicemen. A close reading of the communication demonstrates that Department of Personnel has not construed or referred wife to be falling under the definition of the word ‘Ward’. It is only sons/daughters, who have been referred as dependent wards and the wives have been independently referred therein after the words sons/daughters by adding the word “or”. Therefore, there was a complete misreading by the Director, Higher Education, in terms whereof, he recommended to Secretary, Education that wives be construed as ‘ward’ of Himachal Pradesh working employees. 16. De-hors this fact and be that as it may, fact of the matter remains that it was the Government itself which called upon the University to take an independent call on the issue being an Autonomous Body and thereafter, an independent view was taken thereupon by the University, in terms of Annexure P-28, which view as per this Court, is a prudent view. Therefore, in the backdrop of the above discussions, as this 10 Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 05, 2025 (Vinod)