Dr. S. Sarmila, M.B.B.S. vs The Secretary, Selection Committee (P.G. Course)

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to apply the Rule of Reservation as provided

in Clause IX(5)(B) of the Prospectus and admit the Petitioner to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Course for the year 1998-99, and pass such

further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and thus render justice.

After completing M.B.B.S. and C.R.R.I. Course, Petitioner applied for admission to Post-Grraduate Course in Medicine. The mode of

selection is on the basis of marks obtained in Entrance Examination and for General Candidates and for Service Candidates extra mark is also

given, but they are treated separately. The Entrance Examination was conducted on 18.4.1998 and the Petitioner obtained 51.12. Marks. In

Clause 17 of the Prospectus, provision is made for Rule of Reservation. There, it is stated that the ''Rule of Reservation is applicable when there

are eight seats and more in each discipline''. In Clause IX - Method of Selection and Admission in Sub-clause 5(B), application of Rule of

Reservation is prescribed. According to Writ Petitioner, the same is in conformity with the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994. As per provisions of thee

said Act also, 1% is reserved for Scheduled Tribes. It is the further case of Petitioner that as per the Prospectus for M.D. Course, there are totally

228 seats available and for Diploma Course 386 seats are available. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent has not applied the Rule of

Reservation in so far as Scheduled Tribe is concerned. Even though the Petitioner was called for counselling on 13.5.1998 and she also appeared,

she was not selected. At the time of counselling, she was asked to opt the Discipline in the M.D. Course and Diploma Course. Petitioner opted for

M.D. (General Medicine) in which 74 seats are available and M.D. (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) in which 30 seats are available, and in the

Diploma Course, she opted for D.C.O. in which 70 seats are available. But, in none of these Discipline, no seat is reserved for Schedule Tribe and

so the Petitioner was not selected. It is under those circumstances, Petitioner has come to this Court for the aforesaid relief.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent wherein it is stated that the Petitioner has not opted for M.D. (General Medicine) and

Diploma (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) as alleged, and she opted only for M.D. (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) in which there are totally 30 seats.

Out of the 30 seats, 50% has to be selected from Open Category, and the remaining 50% has to be reserved for Service Candidates. Reservation

has to be made taking into consideration the number of seats in each discipline and not the total number of seats for M.D. course. In this case the

number of seats reserved for schedule Tribe is far below 1% (to be exact O-1) and, therefore, seats could not be allotted against Schedule Tribe

category. Schedule Tribes are considered along with Scheduled Castes and allotted seats according to merits. Even if Petitioner is considered with

Scheduled Caste candidates, chances are very remote since candidates with better qualification are in the wait-list. Respondent, therefore, prayed

for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Similar question has come up for consideration and this Court has held that the Reservation will have to be considered taking into consideration

the number of seats in each Discipline. It was so held by Bakthavatsalam, J. in W.P. No. 5727 of 1993 (vide order dated 15.4.1993). Learned

Judge held that a reading of the Clauses of the Prospectus clearly shows that candidates applying for more than one branch should apply

separately. It was further held that reservation cannot be considered taking into consideration total number of seats allotted for the Post-Graduate

Courses. The same principle was adopted by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Writ Appeal No. 16 of 1996 (Dr. A.

Sadesh Kumar v. The Secretary, P.G. Selection Committee, etc. - judgment dated 7.8.1997). In that case, Then-Lordships have held thus:

...The contention raised by Mr. S. Duraiswami in regard to the rule of reservation cannot at all be accepted in view of the Division Bench judgment

of this Court comprising of K.S. Bakthavatsalam and D. Raju, JJ. in the decision reported in D. Balasubramanian v. State of Tamil Nadu 1993

Writ L.R. 925. After considering the various decisions covering the field, the learned Judges said that the percentage of reservation has to be

worked out with reference to each branch and not by taking the total number of seats together. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in

Smt. Chetana Dilip Motghare Vs. Bhide Girls Education Society, Nagput and others, has also held that the principles of reservation do not apply

to an isolated post. One of us (A.R. Lakshmanan, J.) sitting single in the case reported in P.R. Chockalingam v. The Director of Tourism 1993 I

L.W. 17 has also taken a similar view. That case relates to the reservation of candidates for employment from among the Backward Community.

Only one post was available for being filled up. Following the judgment reported in Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, and the Full

Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Dr. Rajkumar v. Gulbarga University AIR 1990 Kar 320, this Court held that when there is only

one post, the rule of reservation cannot be applied.

I had also occasion to consider a similar question in Writ Petition No. 8346 of 1998 (Dr. G. Vetrivel v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its

Secretary and Ors.) and, in my order dated 9.7.1998, I have taken note of these decisions and followed the same. I have said that the Division

Bench has taken note of the decision reported in Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, wherein it was held that the question of

reservation will not apply where there is only one post. There was some doubt about the correctness of the said decision. In Post Graduate

Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh Vs. Faculty Association and Others, , where Their Lordships held thus:

In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post

in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public.

Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the

constitutional framework. The decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent. Hence, until there is plurality of posts in

a cadre, the question of reservation will not arise because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with the device of rotation of

roster in a single post cadre is bound to create 100% reservation of such post whenever such reservation is to be implemented. The device of

rotation of roster in respect of single post cadre will only mean that on some occasions there will be complete reservation and the appointment to

such post is kept out of bounds to the members of a large segment of the community who do not belong to any reserved class, but on some other

occasions the post will be available for open competition when in fact on all such occasions, a single post cadre should have been filled up only by

open competition amongst all segments of the society.

Mr. Kapil Sibal has contended that in some higher echelons of service in educational and technical institutions where special expertise is necessary

to hold superior posts like Professors and Readers, there should not be reservation even if there is plurality of posts in such cadre as indicated in

the majority view in Indra Sawhnay case. It is, however, not necessary for us to decide the said contention for the purpose of disposal of these

matters, where the question of reservation in single cadre post calls for decision.

We, therefore, approve the view taken in Chekradhar case that there cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the

reasonings in Madhav case, Brijlal Thakur case, and Bagheshwari Prasad case upholding reservation in a single post cadre either directly or by

device of rotation of roster point. Accordingly, the impugned decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research

cannot also be sustained. The review petition made in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education

& Research, Chandigarh, is therefore allowed and the judgment dated 2.5.1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 is set aside.

The Constitution Bench has held that the decision in Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, does not require any reconsideration and the

same was correctly decided. The same principle applies to this case also. It may also be noted that another learned Judge of this Court (P.

Sathasivam, J.) has also taken a similar view in W.P. No. 13951 of 1994 (Murugesan v. State of Tamil Nadu dated 26.9.1997).

In view of the above binding precedents, I do not think that the Petitioner herein is entitled to any relief. Consequently, the Writ Petition is

dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.