Dr. Vanita Bansal vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.—Dr. Vanita Bansal has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the selection of respondent No. 5 in M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) at Govt. Medical College, Patiala. The petitioner has further made a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing respondents No. 1 to 4 to admit her in M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) at Govt. Medical College, Patiala, and/or for issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Courts finds fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The case set up by the petitioner is that she completed her MBBS Degree in December, 1994. She joined the Punjab Civil Medical Services on 4.2.1997 and remained posted in rural area. On 26.6.2000 the Punjab Govt. issued notification for selection of students for admission to the three years Post Graduate Courses for the session 2000 by holding a Post Graduate Entrance Test. On 6.8.2000 the petitioner appeared in the test in 60% quota of PCMS doctors. The result was declared on 9.8.2000 and the petitioner secured rank 62, whereas respondent No. 5 secured rank 88. It is the case of the petitioner that as per notification of the Punjab Govt., 3% seats are kept reserved for physically handicapped persons. This category of physically handicapped persons is further divided into blindness/low vision 1%, hearing impair- ment t%, orthopaedically handicap 1%. Since there were 106 seats in various specialities in 60% quota of PCMS doctors, so at least one seat for each sub-category was supposed to be reserved. But only 1 seat was reserved for sub-category of blindness/low vision in M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) at Govt. Medical College, Patiala. Respondent No. 5 applied for admission in sub-category of Orthopaedically handicap and not against blindness/low vision category. Interviews were held on 28.8.2000 and the petitioner got her name written in the waiting list of M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) at Govt. Medical College, Patiala at No. 1. According to the prospectus in case eligible candidates for admission against reserved category are not available then such seats will be offered to general category candidates and vice-versa. The case set up by the petitioner further is that since no candidate having blindness/low vision was available for whom 1 seat in M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) was reserved, this seat as per the waiting list should go to the petitioner and not to respondent No. 5 as he applied on Orthopaedically Handicap category. The petitioner made a representation that the reserve seat should be declared as open seat and the same should have been given to the petitioner because she was at No. 1 in the waiting list of M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.), but to no effect. Rather, the seat has been given to respondent No. 5, who applied under sub-category of Orthopaedically handicap and not under blindness/low vision. Therefore, the allotment of seat to respondent No. 5 is bad in the eyes of law. On these premises the petitioner has made the above prayer.

The notice of writ petition was given to the respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 4 filed written statement through the Principal, Govt. Medical College, Patiala. These respondents admit that 3% posts were reserved for physically handicapped (i.e. 1% blindness/low vision, l% hearing impairment and 1% orthopaedically handicapped). It was also admitted by respondent No. 1 and 4 that if candidates of one sub-category are not available/eligible, then the seats can be offered to other sub-category under the main category "physically handicapped". Further, it was pleaded by these respondents that a hundred point roster was supposed to he maintained category-wise, subject-wise and institution-wise with base year 1993. It was also pleaded that only one seat under 60% quota in M.D. Gynae. was reserved for physically handicapped category. With regard to the case of respondent No. 5, it was pleaded by respondents No. 1 and 4 that Dr. Jasbir Singh, respondent No. 5, applied under sub-category of orthopaedically handicapped of physically handicapped category. Since no candidate was available in other sub-category, as such respondent No. 5 was rightly considered under sub-category blindness/low vision as per the criteria of the prospectus.

Separate written statement was also filed by the respondent No. 5 in which he has justified the action of the selection committee granting him the seat. It may also be clarified here that respondent No. 5 also filed civil writ petition No. 10151 of 2000 alleging that as per the policy of the State Government the reservation should be 3%. Since respondent No. 5 was accommodated in the seat notified for low vision/blindness, therefore, he withdrew the writ petition and the same was dismissed as infructuous on 29.8.2000.

Respondent No. 2 also filed a separate written statement, but for our purposes the stand of the State is more important. Therefore, I am not mentioning about the pleas of respondent No. 2.

I have heard Mr. A.K. Chopra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Gurveen H. Singh DAG, Punjab, on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 4, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Advocate on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, Mr. H.S. Sethi, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 5 and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

We all know that the conditions laid down in the prospectus are the guide-lines for the purpose of admission. A reading of prospectus would show that for the PCMS 106 seats were there. As per clause 8 of the prospectus there was reservation for physically handicapped to the extent of 3%, which has been further subdivided into 1% for blindness/low vision, 1% for hearing impairment and 1% for orthopaedically handicap. This clause further lays down that it candidates of one sub-category above are not available/eligible then the seats will be carried to other sub-category under the provision of handicapped quota, it is true that respondent No. 5 applied under sub- category orthopaedically handicapped, but as per the above clause of the prospectus this seat could be transferred against 1 % quota of blindness/low vision or 1 % quota of hearing impairment. Since nobody applied against 1% blindness/low vision and this was the seat which was notified, therefore, respondent No. 5 has been rightly accommodated against sub-category quota of 1% (blindness/low vision). The reading of the prospectus further shows at internal page No. 8 that "In case eligible candidates for admission against reserve category are not available then such seats will be offered to general category candidates and vice-versa". Here the point for adjudication arises vis-a-vis the petitioner and respondents No. 1 and 4. I have just stated above that under the prospectus reservation was 3% for physically handicapped persons, meaning thereby that 3 seats at least, according to the prospectus, should have been reserved for physically handicapped persons. Further there is sub-division of 3% i.e. 1% for blindness/low vision, 1% for hearing impairment and 1% for orthopaedically handicap. The reading of the written statement of respondents No. 1 and 4 nowhere spells out that the selection committee reserved three posts under the physically handicapped quota. Also, there is no evidence on the record to show that any roster was maintained as suggested in the written statement of respondents No. 1 and 4. In this view of the matter, this Court can reasonably infer that 3 seats were supposed to be kept reserved under the physically handicapped quota. One seat has been filled which has been given to respondent No. 5 and still 2 seats are lying unfilled under sub-category quota of 1% for hearing impairment and 1% for orthopaedically handicapped. Since the condition of the prospectus prescribes that in case eligible candidates for admission against reserve category are not available then such seats shall be offered to generally category candidates. The petitioner is at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list of M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.). It is true that the main relief of the petitioner was against respondent No. 5 and under order 7 Rule 7 of the CPC this Court has the power to grant a relief which has been made out from the pleadings of the parties. Moreover, the petitioner has made prayer in the writ petition for the issuance of such other suitable direction which this court finds fit in the circumstances of this case. By not giving 2 seats of the reserve quota to physically handicapped, respondents No. 1 to 4 have committed illegality and have gone against the prospectus. They were bound to fill 3 seats under the physically handicapped quota. One seat has been filled and given to respondent No. 5 and two seats, in the opinion of this court, are lying vacant. In these ''circumstances''? if these 2 seats have not been filled up and have not been given to handicapped persons, the claim of the petitioner deserves to be considered.

In this view of the matter, I allow this writ petition by giving direction to respondents No. 1 and 4 to see that if 2 seats under sub-category quota i.e. hearing impairment and orthopaedically handicapped have not been filled or given to any person, one seat out of this category shall be given to the petitioner within 15 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.

Petition allowed