Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

.

3. As a matter of fact, on hearing arguments on 26.6.2018, the writ petitions were posted for pronouncement of judgment to 29.6.2018, however, instead of pronouncement of judgment, a detailed order has been passed on that day for the reasons recorded therein as without hearing the candidates qualified for appearance in counseling from the exempted category 3(ii) of item No. IV (A) in the Prospectus, it was deemed appropriate not to dispose of the writ petitions finally without hearing the candidates belonging to above said exempted category. However, not only the petitioners in these writ petitions except in CWP No. 1501 of 2018 were allowed to participate in the counseling but those qualified from exempted category 3(ii) supra were also allowed to appear in counseling provisionally with a direction to the respondents not to admit them to the course without the leave of the Court.

(a) Middle or equivalent

(b) Matric or equivalent

(c) 10+1 or equivalent

(d) 10+2 or equivalent x x x x x xx x x xx x x x xx x

3. Following categories of candidates are exempted from the condition of passing the examinations from recognized schools affiliated to ICSE/CBSE/HP Board of School Education and situated within Himachal Pradesh provided that the candidates of these categories should be Bonafide Himachali and their father/mother are living outside Himachal Pradesh on account of their service/posting /private occupation. In such cases, non-

23. It is seen that in the order ibid, prima-facie, the category of the petitioners was held to be similar to that of the exempted category 3(ii).

Such opinion was formed with sole idea to examine the rights of the petitioners to appear in counseling vis-à-vis the right of the candidates of exempted category 3(ii) and nothing beyond it. It was further observed that .

in case candidates belonging to the exempted category 3(ii) were also ultimately not held entitled to such exemption, why they should be allowed to occupy the seats in the Medical/Dental Colleges at the cost of the eligible and qualified Himachali students. Therefore, while in terms of the exemption provided under clause 3(ii) of item IV (A), the qualified candidates of this category had to appear for counseling, the petitioners were also allowed to appear provisionally for counseling with a stipulation that the candidates of both categories shall not be admitted to the course except with the leave of the Court.

However action of State is to the contary. There was condition for proof of schooling at place of residence of parents for children of parents in private occupation outside State of Himachal Pradesh, but, no such condition to other exempted categories renders plea of compulsion, for living outside State with parents at the place of their posting, a farce for other exempted categories. All such candidates have been exempted without taking care of the fact that they have studied in the schools of their choice outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. For example; A child of parents of exempted categories under Clauses 3 (ii) or 3 (iii) opts for schooling at Chandigarh despite posting of his father at Pathankot, then his case, in no manner, is different than any other bonafide Himachali living in the State with children studying outside Himachal in the school of choice. There is no .