Arshpreet Kaur and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The respondent-University invited applications for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses. There were total 400 seats for first three Government Medical Colleges, out of which 15% seats were to be filled in by the Government of India and remaining 85% seats, i.e. 340 seats, from amongst the applicants, which included seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, Backward Class, Backward Area/Border Area, Physically Handicapped, Sports Person, Wards of Terrorist Affected Persons for which 2% seats were reserved. The grievance of the petitioners is that out of 340 seats, only 2% seats has been reserved for the Terrorist Affected Persons to the extent of 6 seats but, as per their calculation, seats would be 7 because 2% would come to 6.80, which is almost 7. The second grievance of the petitioners is that though only the wards of the Terrorist Affected Persons are eligible but the grandchildren of the Terrorist Affected Persons have been given admission. In respect of the first submission with regard to number of seats, he has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Gurkaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others, LPA No. 1749 of 2012, decided on 10.12.2012. In that case, the student was seeking admission to the MBBS Course against the reserved seat of Wards of Terrorist Affected Persons. It was claimed that as per the prospectus, 2% seats are reserved for that category which, according to the respondents, were 5 seats and according to the appellant in that case were 6 seats. The admission to the 6th seat was resisted on the ground that 2% seats has to be calculated after excluding 15% seats meant for All India Quota and 25% seats of Scheduled Caste category.

It was argued by the respondents in that case that the seats reserved for the scheduled caste candidates are the vertical reservation whereas the seats reserved for wards of terrorist and riot affected persons are horizontal reservation and such horizontal reservation cannot be given either to the All India category or Scheduled Caste candidates.

Ultimately, it was held in Gurkaran Singh''s case (supra) that the horizontal reservation will not cut across 15% seats meant for All India quota but for the purpose of State Quota, such horizontal reservation will cut across schedule caste seats falling to the State Quota. In this manner, it was held that it would be 6 seats instead of 5 seats.

Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision in Gurkaran Singh''s case (supra), the first grievance of the petitioners is accepted and it is held that 2% seats under the Terrorist Affected Persons category would come to 7 seats instead of 6 seats.

Insofar as the 2nd contention raised by counsel for the petitioners is concerned that the petitioners, being the children of the Terrorist Affected Persons, would have a precedence over the grandchildren of the Terrorist Affected Persons because it is provided in Clause (vi) that the wards of terrorist affected persons (in order of preference to the exclusion of next category) (As per decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court) are (a) persons killed in terrorist actions in Punjab/riots outside Punjab and (b) terrorist/riot affected/displaced persons.

Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the wards would not include the grandchildren because their parents are alive and since their bread winner is alive, it would be presumed that they are not in the guardianship of their grandfather. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Pawanpreet Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ..

It is further submitted that it is provided in the prospectus itself that "reservation under category (vi)(a) shall be provided only in case of death of the bread winner in such incidences".

Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Categories Code-19 & 20 only deal with the son and daughter, otherwise in case of Freedom Fighters, the word used is "children/grandchildren" instead of wards.

On the other hand, counsel for respondents have submitted that the persons killed in terrorist action is under Category Code-19 but those affected/displaced in terrorist action is under Category Code-20 and the decision in Pawanpreet Kaur''s case (supra) is applicable in the case of Category Code-19 because it is itself provided in the prospectus that "reservation under category (vi)(a) shall be provided only in case of death of the bread winner in such incidences". It is submitted that there is no other Clause of such a nature in respect of Category Code-20 where persons affected by the Terrorist action had to migrate from other parts of the country to the State of Punjab, as has been done by the parents/grandparents of the present petitioners.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties in this regard, I am of the considered opinion that the Category Code-20 would not only apply to the son and daughter of the Terrorist Affected Persons because unlike Category Code-19 where the bread winner of the family has been killed, the persons from the Category Code-20 are those who have been displaced due to terrorist action in other States of the country. In Pawanpreet Kaur''s case (supra), the issue was with regard to Category Code-19 wherein the grandchildren of Terrorist victims were asking admission in that category being the wards despite the fact that their father/bread winner was alive. In that background, making a reference to Note (iv), it was held that such a candidates whose grandfather has been killed in the terrorists attack but their bread winner/father/guardian are alive, they would not get the reservation. Since both the situations are altogether different, therefore, these are kept in separate Categories Code-19 and 20. Thus, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, as mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.