Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Though the respondents in the written statement have not disputed the facts so far as they relate to the petitioner, the case of the respondents is that according to the directions of the Supreme Court, the University had to reserve 25% of the total numbers of seats in each medical college or institution. It is further stated that it was in accordance with the direction of DGHS vide his letter dated 16-6-1988 that out of a total of 95 seats, the University has reserved 24 seats for being filled up on the basis of All India competition. In the written statement it is further stated that the remaining 71 seats were distributed between the two categories of candidates viz. members of HCMS and those belonging to category of open merit candidates. 16 seats which became available on account of non-availability of candidates who had competed for admission in All India Competitive Examination, were rightly divided between the members of HCMS and the open merit candidates. Allocation of four seats out of 16 seats to the candidates belonging to HCMS cannot be termed as illegal, in any manner.

5. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the University had wrongly reserved 24 seats on the basis of All India competition. In fact only 18 seats could have been reserved and the remaining 6 seats had to be filled up from amongst the candidates belonging to the general category. If this had been done all the petitioners who belong to the general category would have been admitted in their respective specialities. He further contended that in any case, the University could have reserved 24 seats, the action in admitting 4 candidates belonging to the HCMS was illegal and the seats should have been given to the candidates belonging to the general category. The admission of the candidates belonging to the HCMS is in violation of the procedure prescribed in the prospectus. The merits of the HCMS candidates had, not been determined in accordance with the method of selection laid down in Appendix 'A'. The learned counsel further argued that the action appears to have been taken in pursuance to the suggestion made by the Government, vide their letter Annexure Rule 1 which did not authorise the diversion of seats of the category of members of H.C.M.S.

11. It was further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the action of the University in diverting 4 out of the 16 seats to the category of HCMS was an infraction of the petitioner's rights. I find no justification in that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the admitted case that only 8 candidates have become available against the seats reserved for being filled up on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. 16 seats had thus become available, which could not be filled due to the non-availability of the candidates from the category of All India basis. Director General Health Services vide its letter dated 16-6-1988 suggested that the vacant seats of All India quota may be filled by the local candidates. 4 seats, one each in the department of Medicine, Pathology, Surgery and ophthalmology were allotted to the candidates from HCMS cadre. These HCMS category candidates were given the same proportion from the total seats. One seat remained for open merit candidate. One seat was transferred to this course from the vacant seats of basic departments, thereby making total seats to be filled up against open category as two. These two seats were filled up from the waiting list in order of merit. The petitioner was at serial No. 3 in the waiting list and due to this he was not given admission. I am of the opinion that the seats have been distributed in an equitable manner and no arbitrariness has been exercised in any manner, and that there was no infirmity in the action of the respondent allotting four of the seats to the members of the HCMS. I am further of the opinion that the reservation of seats for members of the HCMS has all sanction of law. There could be no doubt that those in service of the State are already serving the community and any effort to improve their qualifications would promote general good. It helps the State to improve its services. In view of this, I find that there is no substance in the arguments of petitioner's counsel that seats could not be reserved for HCMS doctors.

12. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also contended that the prospectus makes it mandatory for the candidates to appear in a test and the final merit could be determined only on a cumulative consideration of the performance in the test and the marks secured under various other heads. The case of the petitioner is that the persons belonging to the category of HCMS did not appear in the test and as such the admission was wholly illegal.

13. Mr. J. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the University has drawn this court's attention to the fact that it had been decided to admit the members of the HCMS who had applied for admission on the basis of an interview. This according to the learned counsel was within the powers of the University inasmuch as the criterion as stipulated in Appendix 'A' was only provisional and could be changed as deemed fit. In the written statement filed by the official respondent it has been stated that the Vice Chancellor, the Commissioner & Secretary to Government, the Director & Principal and the Registrar of the University had met and it was decided to consider the members of the HCMS on the basis of an interview. In my view, members of Haryana Civil Medical Service, are a distinct cadre. Even the petitioners have acknowledged this fact and no challenge has been levelled to the reservation of seats in their favour. The petitioners cannot challenge the criterion adopted by the University in the allotment of seals to the HCMS members as they were not competing for the scats reserved for the members of the HCMS. It appears to me that before a person can lay a valid challenge to the admission of a particular candidate he must establish that he is similarly situated and that the differential treatment has infringed his right. I find that the seats had been validly reserved for the members of HCMS and consequently the petitioners who were in no way competing with them have no locus standi to challenge the method adopted by the University in selecting candidates from this category.