Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vimish Jain vs Union Of India And Another on 6 November, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1991P&H222, AIR 1991 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 222, (1991) 1 SERVLR 516 (1991) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 170, (1991) 1 CURLJ(CCR) 170
ORDER
1. The petitioner is a physically handicapped, whose degree of handicapness has been assessed as 40%. He passed 10+2 Examination conducted by the Central Board of Education, New Delhi in the year 1989 and secured 59.25 per cent marks. The Director, Health Services, Chandigarh Administration, respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement which appeared in the Tribune of July 5, 1990 notifying that certain seats from the Central Pool of M.B.B.S. Course for the Sessions 1990-91 were reserved for physically handicapped students for selection and nomination in the Course. It came to the notice of the petitioner later on that five seats were reserved for this category. Since the petitioner fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility for admission, he submitted application in the prescribed form. He was medically examined by a Board constituted by respondent No. 2. The said Board certified that the petitioner was suffering from physically handicapness to the extent of 40%. His application was forwarded by respondent No. 2 i.e. Union Territory, Chandigarh to the Director General, Health Services, New Delhi, respondent No. 1 to petitioner's dismay, he was denied admission to M.B.B.S. Course and some candidates, who were lower in merit, were admitted to the said Course. He made three representations on 16-5-1989, 16-7-1990 and 19-7-1990 to respondent No. 1 bringing to . his notice the irregularities committed by the department in ignoring his claim for the aforesaid Course, but he did not take any action. The petitioner left with no other alternative, approached this Court under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus to the respondents to admit him to the M.B.B.S. Course against one of the five seats reserved for handicapped persons in the Central Pool for the year 1990-91.
2. In nut-shell the petitioner's case is that the action of the respondent in making admission to M.B.B.S. Course only on the basis of degree of handicapness is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. Mr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Senior Advocate, appearing with Mr. Neeraj Jain, Advocate, vehemently argued that merit should have been the criterion for admission to M.B.B.S. Course and the admission on the basis of percentage of handicapness cannot be given being unjust and illegal.
4. On contrary, though the respondent had not disputed the facts of the case, but it was argued that the candidates with higher percentage of handicapness are to be given preference and the merit is not the sole criterion for determining the eligibility of a candidate for selection to admission to the said Course.
5. I have perused the paper-book and considered the submissions made at the bar by the Counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner Vimish Jain secured 59.25% marks in 10 + 2 Examination conducted by the Central Board of Education, New Delhi, in the year 1989, whereas the relative merit on the basis of percentage of marks obtained by the candidates selected for admission to M.B.B.S. Course is as under:--
Sr. No. Name of the Candidate Percentage of marks obtained
1.
Mr. Birender Nath Karan 61.25
2. Mr. Sarbjit Singh Dhindsa 59.25
3. Mr. Esha Sarkar 57.40
4. Mr. M. Madhusudan 55.20
5. Ms. Poonam Dahiya 53.70 A bare reading of the above table clearly indicates that the petitioner secured more marks in the 10 + 2 Examination than the candidates shown at Sr. Nos. 3 to 5, who were selected for admission to M.B.B'.S. Course. Even the marks obtained by him were equal to those secured by Sarbjit Singh, mentioned above, at Sr. No. 2. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the petitioner was lower in merit in comparison to the candidates figured above from Sr. Nos. 3 to 5. But what weighed with the respondents while selecting the candidates mentioned above was that the degree, of their handicapness was more than that the petitioner. I am of the considered view that when the reservation is for a particular category, their inter se merit cannot be ignored oh the quantum of handicapness as they constitute one class. A candidate like the petitioner, who possessed higher merit, should have been picked up for; admission on the basis of academic merit. In the absence of any criterion for admission, it is only the merit alone which should be weighed for admission for professional classes. In Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 : (AIR 1984 SC 1420), the Supreme Court held that the effort must, therefore, always be to select the best and most meritorious students for admission to technical institutions and medical colleges by providing equal opportunity to all citizens in the country. It was further held by their Lordships that the primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission to the medical colleges must, therefore, be merit. The object of any rules which may be made for regulating admissions to the medical colleges must be to secure the best and most meritorious students.
7. In Khalid Hussain (minor) v. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Health Deptt., Madras, (1987)4 Serv LR 598: (AIR 1987 SC 2074), it was held by the Division Bench of the Supreme Court that the proper approach to determine which of the candidates in one particular category should be given a preference in the selection, must, therefore, necessarily depend only on their academic merit.
8. The Division Bench of this Court in Ranbir Singh v. Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology, AIR 1988 Punj & Har 51, held that Sportsmen having Higher Grade Certificates could not be preferred to those who are having lower grade certificates notwithstanding that they are lower in merit.
9. In view of the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, but I am not inclined to disturb the admissions of Punam Dahiya, respondent No. 3 to M.B.B.S. Course commenced for the year 1990-91 and the other candidates namely Esha Sarkaar and M. Madhusudan, who were, admittedly, lower in merit, in view of the fact that they have completed sufficient part of their studies. However, a direction is issued to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner to M.B.B.S. Course for the Session 1990-91 and an additional seat be created for the candidate, who was lower in merit. This direction is issued keeping in view the decision rendered in Sandeep Barar v. State of Punjab, (1990) 1 JT 94 : (AIR 1990 SC 600). It is further directed that the petitioner being a handicapped person is to be accommodated to a nearest place to Chandigarh.
10. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Under the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
11. Order accordingly.