AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Subrumani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents herein to admit Petitioner herein to M.D. (Siddha) Degree course in ''MARUTHUVAM'' branch in the Government Siddha Medical College in Chennai-106,
Petitioner who is physically handicapped got admitted to B.S.M.S. (Siddha) course under special category reserved for physically handicapped candidates, and completed B.S.M.S. Degree course and applied for M.D. (Siddha) Course for the year 1998-99. In the Entrance Examination, she secured 57-50 marks. In view of her belter performance in the Entrance Examination, she was requested to attend the counselling on 15-6-1998 and she was provisionally selected for admission to M.D. (Siddha) Course and was allotted ''MARUTHUVAM'' in Government Siddha Medical College, Palayamkottai. It is further stated that out of 70 seats, 9 seats are allotted to special categories and out of the remaining seals. 30 seats are allotted to service candidates and 31 seats are allotted to service and non-service candidates, taking into consideration their merit. It is the further case of the Petitioner that she belongs to denotified community and 20% seats are allotted to denotified community on the basis of merits. At the time of counselling, the cutoff marks for most backward and denotified community was 61%. The result of the selection or non- selection was not communicated to the candidated in writing and she was not informed as regards non-selection at the time of counselling on 15-6-1998. Among denotified community, only one candidate by name Dr. Muthukumar was selected, and seats are vacant. If the correct percentage of reservation to denotified community was followed, she would have been selected. When only one candidate has been selected from the denotified community, without following the principle of reservation, such selection is bad, when they have reserved 20%. It is further stated that 9 seats reserved for special category was not represented by any candidate and the unfilled seat ought to have been carried over to general pool and non-service candidates and dealt with in accordance with rules of reservation. The same was also not followed. The same amounts to denial of justice and equal opportunity. It is said that when denotified candidates were there and 20% seats are reserved, the non-selection amounts to unequal treatment among the candidates of equal classification and hence violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also said that the Petitioner is still a physically handicapped person undergoing treatment in Madras, and that ground also should have been considered while allotting a seat at Palayamkottai. Petitioner made representation on 29-6-1998 and wanted her to be admitted in Government (Siddha) Medical College, Chennai. which is No. even replied by Respondents. Hence the writ petition for the aforesaid relief.
At the time when the matter came up for admission, 1 directed the learned Additional Government Pleader to take notice, and on instructions, he argued the matter.
I do not think the Petitioner is entitled to any relief in this case. It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner got selected and she was given a seat at Palayamkottai on the basis of the marks obtained by her. She could be allotted a seat only at Palayamkottai, is not disputed. But her grievance is that she ought to have been considered as one among the denotified candidates where there is reservation of 20% or 9 scats reserved for special category which remain unfilled, and her case must be considered on the basis of the rule of reservation.
The above contention is without merit. In Indra Sawhney and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), , Their Lordships have said thus in para 811:
In this connection it is well to remember that the reservation under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, scheduled castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for scheduled castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.
The decision Indra Sawhney''s case (supra) was followed by the Honourable Supreme Court again in a recent decision, in Rajiv Mittal Vs. Maharshi Dayanand University and Others, . In that case, the question was, whether a candidate obtained admission in first counselling on the basis of reservation entitled to get admission on merits in second counselling. Paragraphs 12 to 14 of that decision are relevant for our purpose they read thus:
The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that Sunil Yadav could only be considered as a general category candidate and placed reliance on the observations of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India where at p.735, it was observed as follows:
(SCC para 811)
In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, scheduled castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates. The aforesaid principles has, apparently, been incorporated in Note 2 in the Information Brochure of the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak which reads as follows:
A candidate who applies either for reserved category or for both reserved and open will be considered first in open category. In case he/she is not selected in open category, he/she will lie considered for reserved category.
The aforesaid Note 2 has been construed by the High Court to mean that Sunil Yadav who was also m the merit list for the seat in the open category should be considered as having been selected to the open category seat and he should not be considered as having been selected for the reserved category seat.
The aforesaid Note 2 has not been correctly construed by the High Court. This note, in a case like the present, will have application only when a reserved category candidate is in a position to secure, and secures admission, to a seat in the general in the same counselling in which the seat is available to him in the reserved category. It is for this reason that the first counselling for the general category candidates was held on 9-9-1996 while the first counselling for the reserved category candidates was held on 10-9-1996. In other words, the first counselling was spread over two days, so that if any reserved category student had managed to secure admission to the general category scat, then he would not be entitled to adjustment against the reserved seat. Had Sunil Yadav secured admission to any one of the 49 seats in the first counselling held on 9-9-1996, then he could not have been called or considered for admission against any of the 11 reserved seats in the counselling which was held for the Backward Class candidates on 10-9-1996. As Sunil Yadav''s position in the open category was at serial No. 62 and the last candidate who had secured admission at the first counselling against the 49th seat was at serial No. 53, therefore, having failed to secure admission on 9-9-1996, Sunil Yadav was rightly allowed to lake part on the second day of the first counselling for the Backward Class candidates which was held on 10-9-1996. It is in that counselling that he was selected and granted admission to the Medical College at Rohtak. Once Sunil Yadav had secured admission in the reserved category quota at the first counselling, there would be no occasion for him to take part in the second counselling for the general category seat for the same college which was held on 26-9-1996. The seat which had fallen vacant was one of the 49 seat which was required to be filled by the general category candidates. As the aforesaid Note 2 was not applicable to a caste like the present, where Sunil Yadav having failed to secure admission to a seat in the open category in the first counselling for that category but had secured admission to the reserved seal in the same counselling, the quest-ion of his being shifted or being regarded as a candidate to the open category seat which had become available only after he has secured admission did not and could not arise and, consequently, the Appellant was rightly granted admission to the general category seat in the Rohtak Medical College.
(Emphasis supplied)
The question of accommodating Petitioner as a candidate in a special category since seats are vacant also will not arise when she has already been admitted on the ground of merit.
Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner is physically handicapped and she was admitted to B.S. M.S. course only under special category as a physically handicapped person. I do not think that for admission to a postgraduate degree, any special category is provided for physically handicapped. The question of admitting under special category also will arise only when an application is made under that category. When there is no such reservation for Post Graduate Course, the question of allotting a seat to the Petitioner will not arise.
Finally, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that her representation to Government must be directed to be considered. I do not think that any purpose will be served in directing the Respondents to consider the same, since Petitioner has already been admitted on merit quota.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. WMP 13996 of 1998 for interim direction is also dismissed consequently.