Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ms.Ramanpreet Kaur Minor Through Her ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 September, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15342 OF 2009 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 21, 2010
Ms.Ramanpreet Kaur minor through her father Balbir Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Monica Chibber Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
Mr. R.P.Verma, Advocate for
Mr. B.B.S.Sobti, Advocate,
for respondent No.3.
Mr. H. S. Sethi, Advocate,
for respondent Nos.4 to 9.
Mr. S. S. Brar, Advocate,
for respondent No.10.
Mr. Gurminder Singh &
Mr. Manpreet Singh &
Mr. Parampreet Singh, Advocates,
for respondent Nos.11 and 12.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Though successful in earlier round, the petitioner is again CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15342 OF 2009 :{ 2 }:
before the Court through the present writ petition. The petitioner is striving hard to get admission in the M.B.B.S. Course pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by her. She was offered a seat in management quota at Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research, Bhatinda, which she did not accept and instead filed the present petition to complain that earlier directions issued by the Court have not been complied with.
The petitioner submitted her application for pre-medical entrance test on 28.5.2009. She was issued admit card and attended the counselling as she was shown at Sr.No.129 in the ranking. When her turn came for admission, she was apprised that she had not passed her 10+2 Examination from Punjab and hence, could not be considered against 85% quota meant for the State known as `State Quota'. The petitioner claims to have made a request for considering her in 15% All India Quota, which request was turned down on the ground that it was only meant for NRI students. As per the petitioner, there is no stipulation in Clause 7.7 of prospectus, where the notification issued by the State Government on 23.7.2008 is reproduced. The petitioner filed a representation on 14.7.2009 and when nothing happened, she filed Civil Writ Petition No.9856 of 2009 before this Court on 23.7.2009. This writ petition was allowed on 24.9.2009 with a direction that the petitioner alongwith her co-
petitioner be permitted to participate in the counselling provisionally and on consideration of their merit, if they are otherwise eligible, be admitted to the relevant course in accordance with law. The petitioner accordingly appeared and was permitted to participate in the counselling. She was offered a seat in the Management Quota at CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15342 OF 2009 :{ 3 }:
respondent No.10-Institution. As per the petitioner, this was after great harassment, which was not in consonance with the direction issued by this Court while allowing her above noted writ petition. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another detailed representation and has now filed the present writ petition to make a claim for her admission in the Government Quota seat.
While issuing notice of motion, the grievance of the petitioner in this regard was noticed wherein she had made a prayer for grant of admission in the State Quota instead of the Management Quota as offered.
Initially, the petitioner had not impleaded any candidate by name but subsequently, she impleaded four candidates as respondents, who according to her, had been admitted, ignoring the claim of the petitioner against the Government Quota seat. Later, the petitioner also impleaded Medical Council and Dental Council of India also, besides Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences, where she was offered a seat in the Management Quota.
Replies has been filed by various respondents. The main contest ofcourse is with the University (respondent No.2), whose stand would be relevant to decide the claim of the petitioner. After making reference to the background, it is stated by respondent No.2 that the petitioner had approached the respondent-University for complying with the judgment passed by this Court on 25.9.2009, when she was offered an available M.B.B.S. seat at Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhatinda, which she accepted. Mention is then made to various messages sent to the petitioner, when she did not join the concerned Institute. The proceedings of the counselling have CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15342 OF 2009 :{ 4 }:
been reproduced in the reply to explain the factual position, when petitioner had filed the representation through fax on 28.9.2009. When the petitioner did not join the College even thereafter, and had conveyed through her Advocate contacted on telephone, that she will not opt for the seat offered in the Management Quota, that further action was taken by the Institute to allocate the seat.
In the reply, it is also disclosed that only three candidates, who were having less than 423 marks, which is the score of the petitioner in P.M.T., were admitted against the Government Quota prior to 24.9.2009 i.e. the date of the judgment in the writ filed by the petitioner. These three candidates were admitted under the reserved category in Government Medical College, Patiala. It is further stated that no other candidate with lower merit than the petitioner has been admitted against the Government Quota seat in any of the affiliated Colleges before or after 24.9.2009. Reference is made to the prayer made in the representation (Annexure P-11) submitted by father of the petitioner to the effect that "my daughter be offered appropriate seat against her merit ranking in the Government Quota or atleast Management Quota seat in the D.M.C., Ludhiana be offered to me." From this, it is urged that the petitioner was only interested in getting admission to D.M.C., Ludhiana, even in the Management Quota and rather than at Bhatinda. As per the respondent-University, her claim for Government Quota seat alone as advanced now is, thus, belied by her conduct. Other respondents have also opposed the prayer made in the writ petition.
The grievance as canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that her claim has not been properly considered in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15342 OF 2009 :{ 5 }:
light of direction given by this Court while allowing Civil Writ Petition No.9856 of 2009. The whole case set up by the petitioner is that Clause 7.7 of the notification permits admission to those candidates who have not passed 10+2 examination from the State of Punjab and admission can be made on all India basis upto 15% quota out of 85% State Quota and even more if the candidates from the State Quota are not available. The direction issued was to consider the claim of the petitioner for admission to M.B.B.S and allied course on her merit in the P.M.T. amongst the candidates who fall under this category notwithstanding that they had passed their 10+2 qualifying exam from outside the State of Punjab.
The petitioner was offered a seat in the Management Quota. As per the counsel, her claim, while offering this seat, has not been determined properly and if the claim of the petitioner had been considered in accordance with her merit, then she was bound to get admission in the Government Quota seat. The plea further is that Clause 7.7 is meant to apply to Government Quota seats only and as such, making an offer of seat in Management Quota, the respondents have committed a gross contempt of the directions issued by this Court. The petitioner would accordingly pray for re- determining her merit in accordance with the directions issued by this Court under Clause 7.7 of the Prospectus and if it had been done properly, the petitioner would have got seat in Daya Nand College, Ludhiana.
Mr.Anupam Gupta, appearing for the University, has made elaborate reference to the various provisions of the prospectus as well as the notification issued by the Government. The learned CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15342 OF 2009 :{ 6 }:
counsel would submit that the petitioner is misconceived in construing that Clause 7.7 of the Prospectus would cover only the Government Quota seats and not the Management Quota. While further elaborating, the counsel would contend that difference ought to be understood between the term `State Quota' and the `Government Quota' and these terms are not inter-changeable. State Quota is meant to define the territorial limits vis-a-vis the All India Quota fixed in the prospectus whereas the `Government Quota' is meant to explain status of seats in the Institution and is not to be confused with the words `State Quota'. Mr. Anupam Gupta is justified in submitting that if Clause 7.7 is interpreted in the manner to apply it to the Government Quota seat only, then it will do great injustice to the candidates.
When faced with this situation, Mr.Amar Vivek had to concede that Clause 7.7 would not apply to Government Quota seats alone and would also apply to Management Quota seats. That being the conceded position, it will not be possible for him to urge that the respondents had in any manner violated the directions issued by this Court while allowing the Civil Writ Petition No.9856 of 2009. In fact, the directions issued in this writ petition can not be read to mean that the claim of the petitioner was to be considered only against Government Quota seats. The violation of the order could only be urged if the directions can be so read to construe that Clause 7.7 is to apply to Government Quota seat alone. If it is to apply to management quota seat also, then the petitioner was offered a seat in the Management Quota, which would mean that the directions issued by this Court were duly complied with.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15342 OF 2009 :{ 7 }:
Mr.Amar Vivek, at this stage, seems to be changing stance a bit by pleading that the petitioner was meritorious amongst those candidates who were admitted in quota meant for Clause 7.7 and if the counselling had been properly conducted as per the merit, the petitioner was bound to get seat atleast in Institution like D.M.C., Ludhiana. There is no material placed to show that on merit the petitioner was required to be allotted seat in preference to some of the candidates admitted in this category. The reference made by the counsel to the pleadings in the additional affidavit to the effect that there are bound to be some seats available under Clause 7.7 of the Prospectus and that the petitioner and her co-petitioner, Mehak, were the only candidates in this category and, thus, required to be admitted against such seats in D.M.C., Ludhiana, is only a mere averment and has, in my view, effectively controverted by the reply filed by the University. As already noted, the University in its reply has clearly stated that except for 3 candidates, who were in reserved category other than that of the petitioner, no candidate with lower merit was admitted in the Government Quota in any of the affiliated Colleges either before or after 24.9.2009. This plea of the petitioner, thus, can not be accepted.
Lastly, the counsel for the petitioner, on support of the law laid down in Medical Council of India Vs. Swati Sethi, 2004 (5) SCC 798 and Goldy Syal Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, 2008 (1) SCT 504, would plead that the petitioner can be granted admission in the M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Quota seat by curtailing one seat in academic session 2010-2011. In Goldy Syal's case (supra), finding was that the petitioner was denied CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15342 OF 2009 :{ 8 }:
admission illegally and one seat had been kept reserved in the next session. The petitioner was offered a seat, which she declined. This course, as pleaded, can not, thus, be adopted. This is a case where the petitioner was offered a seat and is not a case where she is deprived of admission, for which her case should be considered for grant of admission against the seat meant for subsequent sessions. There is, thus, no merit in this plea also and the same can not be accepted.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
September 21, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE