Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kiranjot vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 September, 2014
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
CWP No. 9793 of 2014 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
5CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 9793 of 2014 (O&M)
Date of decision: September 2, 2014.
Kiranjot
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Additional Advocate General,
Punjab, for respondent No.1.
Mr. KS Sandhu, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 and 3.
Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate,
for respondent No. 6.
K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner challenged successfully a notification requiring a pass 10+2 exams from the Punjab to qualify for consideration under the Punjab resident category and obtained in the process the benefit of consideration for admission to MBBS seat in a private college under the management quota. The order passed by this court in CWP No. 17432 of 2013 initially directed consideration of the petitioner in the vacant seat at PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 9793 of 2014 2 the counselling held on 15.9.2013 and the only seat which was available, being a payment seat in a private college, was granted to her. The writ petition ultimately was allowed dismissing the government notification prescribing the criteria for the residents of Punjab as a pass in 10+2. The judgment was passed on 20.12.2013. By that time, 5 persons, who were lower in merit, had gained admission in government colleges and 8 persons in government quota in private colleges. All the 13 persons who had secured lower marks but who came by the category of lower tuition fee by gaining admission in government quota in government colleges and private colleges respectively, were impleaded as parties and the petitioner sought for a relief that she be adjusted against any government seat granted to any of the private respondents. The writ petition was filed at a time when her own plea for such consideration had been rejected by the university through its order dated 11.3.2014 (Annexure P/14). The order reasoned that as per the decision of the Supreme Court and as per the Punjab Government notification, admission to MBBS and BDS courses were to be completed by 30.9.2013 and by the time when this Court had allowed for one seat to be kept at private college in general category under the management quota, all available government seats had already been filled up. If re-adjustment was not possible, the impugned order provided that the petitioner could apply for migration after passing the 1st year of MBBS and subject to the fulfillment of terms and conditions.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would state that since the government had passed an illegal notification prescribing a particular PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 9793 of 2014 3 criterion for Punjab resident status which was quashed by this court on 20.12.2013, the petitioner cannot be victimized by a notification which was legally untenable and, therefore, either a student who had secured lower marks and gained admission in a free seat must be displaced and in his/her place, she must be adjusted or in the alternate the government must be made to absorb the cost of the tuition fee which she has to pay in addition to the fee payable under the seat in government quota.
3. I notice that even at the time when the writ petition was taken on board and notices were issued on 20.5.2014, this court had dismissed the writ petition against the students who had been arrayed as respondents No. 7 to 19. Consequently, there can be no decision taken in favour of the petitioner to the disadvantage of respondents No. 7 to 19 that could allow for a consideration for accommodating the petitioner in any of the seats to which the private respondents have been considered.
4. This leads us only to a question, whether there was anything wrong about the order that could obtain judicial correction to the benefit of the petitioner. The order was issued by the University in a situation that had to cope with a time schedule of completing the admission process before 30.9.2013 and the possibility of securing admission for the petitioner as per the court direction was only in management quota in a private college. If the court ultimately found that the government notification was to be quashed, it vindicated the petitioner's contention to the point upto which she secured the admission and beyond that, it would be difficult to look for any higher benefits. The argument of the learned counsel that the State shall PREM SINGH 2014.09.06 17:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 9793 of 2014 4 absorb the cost incurred by her is too high an expectation, for, there was nothing inherently illegal about the notification issued. The requirement of a 10+2 schooling from an educational institute in Punjab was not favoured by a judicial dispensation at that time but it is invariably a matter of judicial perception of what was appropriate. What was favourable to her, I must observe, has not come by such a sure benefit for students competing this year i.e. 2004, for this court has held in the decision Shamly Jindal Versus State of Punjab and others Civil Writ Petition No. 12017 of 2014 decided 5.8.2014 that the government notification prescribing 10+2 qualification to obtain only from an institute in Punjab could be justified as advancing the state's own interest for securing a steady stream of professionals, who could be dedicated to the services within the State. I cannot, therefore, make the State to shoulder the cost for continuing her education in MBBS.
5. The impugned order itself makes provision for scope for scope for migration and, therefore, I make no direction in that regard.
6. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is declined but with the above direction.
September 2, 2014 (K.KANNAN)
prem JUDGE
PREM SINGH
2014.09.06 17:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh