AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Lingaraja Rath, J.—The appellant has approached this Court complaining against the notice issued to him by respondent No. 1 that the seat allotted him in M.S. (General Surgery) in the non-service category has to be cancelled in pursuance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No. 1760 of 1995, that he would be eligible for admission in the vacant seats for non-service candidates in other courses, and to show-cause within a week against the proposed action.
One Dr. B. Raj Siddartha, respondent No. 4, an in-service candidate, had filed W.P.No.1760 of 1995 averring that one seat in M.S.(General Surgery) which should have been made available to Scheduled Castes in-service candidates had been actually assigned to other candidates resulting in his being deprived of for admission into that course. In deciding the writ petition the Court held that in accordance with the Rules for admission to Postgraduate ''Medical Courses'' in the Medical Colleges in University of Health Sciences, A.P. for the academic year 1994-95, hereinafter referred to as "the Rules", 15% of the total number of seats were to be reserved for in-service candidates in each of the categories, but that eventhough the Rules were so, yet the reservation was not carried out for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and that respondent No. 4 being a Scheduled Caste in-service candidate was deprived of the seat in the General Surgery which was to have been reserved for in-service Scheduled Caste candidate. Reaching the finding the Court declared respondent No. 4 as being entitled to a seat and that he should be admitted into the M.S. (General Surgery) with immediate effect. Review WPMP No. 19918 of 1995 in W.P.No.1760 of 1995 filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein was also dismissed on 1-8-1995. Thereupon the impugned notice being issued to the appellant he has preferred this appeal with the permission granted to appeal against the judgment in W.P.No.1760 of 1995 since he was not originally a party to the writ petition but he is being purported to be adversely affected as a fall out of the direction in the judgment.
Though the appeal was listed for admission yet since the matter is urgent and all the parties have appeared the case has been admitted and with the consent of the parties heard and is being finally disposed of.
While Rule 3 of the Rules says, so far as relevant, that 15% of seats in Clinical subjects i. e. in Medicine, Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynaecology groups, in each group are reserved for in-service candidates, Rule 3-B (iv) provide "Number of seats reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class and in-service candidates in Degree/Diploma course and the total seats available in each group are shown in Annexure-IV." In Annexure-IV it is seen that the total seats in MS (General Surgery) is 17 which are divided as 9 in the open category (OC), 4 for Backward Class (BC), 3 for Scheduled Caste (SC) and 1 for Scheduled Tribe (ST). Out of the total seats 3 are shown as reserved for in-service candidates with the break up shown as being 1 for OC, 1 for BC and 1 for SC/ST. While the learned single Judge found the one seat reserved for SC/ST has not been actually assigned to in-service candidate and hence issued the impugned direction, it is the submission of the appellant that since 15% of seats are to be reserved in each group, such reservation is not possible for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the number of seats available for them being only 3 and 1 respectively and 15% of such members is less than 0.5. The other contention raised is that the writ petition was disposed of without notice to him and that hence the decision is hit by the principles of natural justice.
Developing the first submission the learned counsel for the appellant argues of there being no provision in the Rules that if ''15% reservation is not possible either for Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes the two categories of seats are to be clubbed together to give effect to the 15%. According to him though the number of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe seats taken together i.e, as 4, yields the figure 0.6 and could be rounded up as one seat, yet there is no authority in the Rules for the dubbing of both groups seats together for the purpose. Consequently it should have been held that one seat was not available for in-service candidates for Scheduled Caste of Scheduled Tribe in the MS (General Surgery) group. Developing and supporting the argument the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that though in Annexure IV one seat was shown as reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the in-service candidate yet actually such a seat is not available as against the net group reservation and the stipulation was that one extra SC seat shall be converted to OC to make up net group reservation.
To appreciate the contention it is necessary to extract the table in Annexure-IV showing the reservation for Surgery group:
ANNEXURE-IV
Sl. No.
Subject
OMC HYD
GMC HYD
KMC Wgl
Total
OC
BC
SC
ST
Unreserved
Seats for service candidate
MEDICINE GROUP
XXX
XXX
XXX
SURGERY GROUP
1.
MS Gen. Surg.
8
5
4
17
9
4
3
1
2
3 (OC1, BC1, SC/ST 1)
2.
MS Ortho
5
2
2
9
5
2
1
1
1
1 (OC)
3.
MS Opthal
7
1
4
12
6
3
2
1
1
2 (OC1) (S) for BC/SC ST 1.
4.
D.D.
7
1
4
12
6
3
2
1
1
2 (OC1) (S) for BC/SC/ST 1.
5.
MS ENT
2
2
2
6
3
2
1
-
1
1 1 (SA)
6.
D.O.
2
2
2
6
3
2
1
-
1
1 1 (SA)
Total
31
13
18
62
32
16
10
4
7
10
Net Group Reser.
32
16*
9
4
-
9**
* BC A -4, BC B-6, BCC-1, BC D-4 (1 for BC A or BC B or BC D)
** OC-6, BC-2, (BC-1), BCA-or BCD1) (SC 1)
One extra SC seat shall be converted to OC to make up net group reservation.
It is the argument that though as against the total seats of 62 ten seats are shown as reserved for in-service candidate yet such number is a mistake as the total number of seats in the Surgery Group is 62 of which 15% is 9.3 and hence only 9 seats can be reserved for in-service candidates and that as such 9 is shown with double asterisk mark in the in-service reservation column as against the net group reservation and that 9** has been explained as 6 for OC, 2 for BC and SC 1. Thus only one seat is available for SC out of all the in-service candidates and that such seat is to be for all the different subject groups in surgery. The reduction of 10 reserved seats to 9 is further explained submitting that though as against the respective total seats available in respect of each subject of the Surgery group viz., 17,9,12,12,6,6, and the reservation carried out for in-service candidates in respect of each subject are 3,1,2,2,1,1, yet the showing of the reservations was not actually correct and the figures have been reached only by rounding up more than 0.5% as 1 but that when 15% is calculated as against 62, the total seats for reservation comes to only 9.
Such submissions though have been strenuously pressed yet do not stand a close analysis. So far as the submission of there being no provision in the Rules for clubbing up the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes seats for the purpose of determination of the in-service reservation is concerned, it is to be seen that Rule 3-B(iv) provides that the number of seats reserved for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Backward Class and in-service candidates are shown in Annexure IV. Annexure IV hence forms part of the rule itself and it has to be taken that the intention of the Rule making authority was to work out the reservation actually as in Annexure IV. It shows that where the situation is that 15% reservation cannot be worked out individually in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes seats, those seats are to be combined together and the 15% reservation has to be worked out and the reservation is shown as SC/ST -1 viz., the seat is available either to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The submission advance by the learned counsel hence has to be negatived.
So far as the other submission of reserved seats for in-service Scheduled Caste candidate being not available in MS (General Surgery) group is concerned it is to be seen that even in the net group reservation 1 seat is available for Scheduled Caste and that is why while such a seat is shown unconditionally as SC/ST -1 against the MS (General Surgery) subject, yet the reservation of BC/SC/ST seats as against MS, Opthalmology and Degree and Diploma (DD) are shown as SA i.e, subject to availability. Unquestionably hence one reserved seat is available for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe for in-service candidate in MS General Surgery. It is conceded before us that if a reserved seat for in-service candidate is available for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in MS General Surgery, it is the respondent No. 4 who is entitled to the seat and that the appellant as the last candidate in the Open Category admitted against that seat is to forfeit the seat in favour of respondent No. 4.
What is next argued is that the appellant having been already admitted to the course on 27-1-1995 and having pursued the course, he should not be deprived of the seat. The admission of the appellant on 27-1-1995 was seriously disputed contending that his admission was actually made much later and that too in violation of the orders of stay passed by this Court. Since the appellant claims to have taken admission on 27-1-1995 we directed an affidavit disclosing his date of admission to be filled by the Principal, Kakatiya Medical College in which College the appellant has been admitted. One affidavit was filed on 17-10-1995 which being not satisfactory, a further affidavit was filed on 8-11-1995 with some documents. It appears that selection was held from 27-1-1995 to 29-1-1995 in the premises of the Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and mat the appellant having been selected on 27-1-1995 itself deposited the fees on the same day at the counter available in the Osmania Medical College. A letter was addressed to the appellant on the same day by the Chairman, Post graduate Selection Committee informing him of his selection on 27-1-1995 for admission and saying that he has been provisionally selected for admission. He was directed to submit the original certificate, submit the fees, and physically report again to the Principal along with the prescribed bond on or by 6-2-1995 to obtain admission card and that if he failed to report before the Principal along with the bond on or before the date mentioned, the provisional selection was to be deemed to have been automatically cancelled. The appellant appeared with the bond before the Principal on 3-2-1995. On 3-2-1995 the Court passed orders in WPMP No. 2193 of 1995 directing interim stay as prayed for i.e, to stay all further proceedings pursuant to the provisional selection made by the Selection Committee. Thereafter on 16-2-1995 the order passed on 3-2-1995 was modified after hearing the counsel on both sides directing respondent No. 4 to keep 1 seat reserved in the General Surgery against in-service quota. On 23-2-1995 order was passed that as the matter was to be taken up for final decision next week, the respondents shall keep the seat earlier directed to be reserved till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The affidavit of the Principal purports to say that the admission of the appellant was on 27-1-1995. The admission register itself showing on what date the appellant was admitted has not been produced though we directed by our order on 1-7-1995 not only to file affidavit but also to produce all supportive documents evidencing admission of the candidate. Rule 11(i) of the Rules shows that the dates of admission of selected candidates will be the dates as communicated to them in the letter of selection. The letter of selection produced shows that the appellant was provisionally selected and was directed produced the bond on or before 6-2-1995 failing which the provisional selection was to stand cancelled. Hence 27-1-1995 could not be the date of admission of the appellant and it could be earliest on 3-2-1995 when the order of stay was passed. Respondent No. l has throughout represented before the Court of a seat having been kept vacant for respondent No. 4 in view of the stay order passed by the Court. Thus in the face of the order of stay the respondent No. 4 cannot be prejudiced either by the admission of the appellant or because of respondent No. 1 failing to keep a seat reserved. There is also no principle of natural justice violated since in the first place respondent No. 4 could not have impleaded the appellant as a party as it cannot be expected that he would be knowing as to who has been allotted the seat due to him, and that on the other hand the show-cause notice has been issued to him by respondent No. 1 and he has been allowed to appeal before the Court where he has been now heard on all the contentions raised by him.
In that view of the matter the appeal has no merit and is dismissed but in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to Costs.
After the delivery of the Judgment on Oral request is made for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India, After hearing the learned counsel we do not consider this case as involving any question as to the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution of India or as involving any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court of India. Leave is refused.