Ekjot Kaur vs State of Punjab and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner has challenged the Note appended with Clause 15(A)(i) of the notification dated 05.06.2013 of Part

II of the prospectus wherein it has been observed that reservations for categories except SC category would be calculated on the seats left out

after deduction of SC Quota seats and prayed for a direction to the respondents to calculate 1% seats reserved for Sports Category on total

number of seats and also made a prayer that she be admitted on the basis of her last year score where she had secured 4th position in the merit list

of Sports Category for admission in the MBBS Course for the academic session 2013-14. As per the case set up by the petitioner, total 350 seats

were advertised by the respondent-University for 3 Government Medical Colleges in the State of Punjab, out of which 15% seats were to be filled

in on the basis of All India Quota and remaining 85% seats, i.e. 297.5 seats, were to be filled in from amongst the Punjab quota. In total 297.5

number of seats, there are reservations for Scheduled castes, Backward Class, Backward Area/Border Area, Physically handicapped, Sports

Person, Wards of Terrorist affected persons.

The petitioner, claiming herself to be a sports person, falling in the Sports Category, applied in the said category for the academic session 2012-

She appeared in the written examination conducted by the University and secured 4th rank last year, in the Sports Category. According to the

petitioner, the candidate whose name figured at Sr. No. 1 in the merit list did not claim seat and, thus there were 3 candidates in the fray for

admission in the MBBS Course last year, but due to wrong calculation of 1% seats, only 2 students were offered admission in the Sports

Category, whereas 1% reserved number of seats out of 297.5 comes to almost 3 seats. It is, thus, submitted that the Note, referred to above, has

already been interpreted by this Court in the case of Gurkaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others,'' LPA No. 1749 of 2012, decided on

10.12.2012, and the petitioner also deserves the same benefit.

After notice, reply has been filed by the respondent-University in which as per distribution of seats for the academic session 2012-13, there

were 2 seats in the Sports Category which have already been filled up. The petitioner was at Sr. No. 4 in the merit list, which she herself has

admitted in the petition and even if the candidates at Sr. No. 1 did not join, the admissions have been given to Ketki Kaushal and Harmanpreet

Kaur who were above in the merit list than the petitioner. ''It is also alleged that the petitioner has already taken NEET-UG-2013 exam in which

she could not qualify in the merit list, therefore, she is approaching this Court for getting admission on the basis of her result of 2012. It is also

submitted that there is no quarrel with the ratio of law laid down in LPA No. 1749 of 2012, but the petitioner cannot be given admission in the

year 2013 on the basis of her merit of the year 2012 because in Gurkaran Singh''s case (supra), writ petition was filed on 30.07.2012 which was

decided on 29.09.2012. The LPA was filed in October/November 2012 which was decided on 10.12.2012. Since the decision was taken in the

LPA in mid-stream, it was ordered by the Appellate Court that the admission to the said petitioner shall be given in the next session.

Counsel for the respondent-University has also averred in the written statement that the present writ petition has been filed only after the

decision of the LPA No. 1749 of 2012.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner has sought interpretation of the Note appended with Clause 15(A)(i) of the prospectus, which reads as under:--

Note: The reservation of SC shall be calculated on total seats of the institution after deduction of CBSE quota seats if the reservation is provided to

SC/ST by the CBSE whereas the rest of reservation for all other categories shall be calculated on the seats left out after deduction of CBSE and

SC Quota seats.

According to the petitioner, 1% reservation in the Sports Category has to be calculated in terms of the order passed in LPA No. 1749 of 2012

which also finds mention in Clause 15 (Reservation) of the prospectus which reads that ""reservation policy reconsidered in the light of Hon''ble

High Court judgment dated 10.12.2012 in LPA No. 1749 of 2012 in CWP No. 14569"". Thus, the issue raised by the petitioner is that the number

of seats in respect of 1% reservation meant for Sports category has to be calculated without deducting the reservation meant for the Scheduled

Castes, but insofar as the prayer of the petitioner for admission in the year 2013 is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioner cannot

take advantage of the direction contained in the order dated 10.12.2012 passed in LPA No. 1749 of 2012 because of the reason that in Gurkaran

Singh''s case (supra), the said petitioner immediately filed the writ petition in the month of July 2012, however, it was decided against him on

28.09.2012 giving him cause of action to file intra-court appeal, which was filed in the month of October/November 2012 and the same was

allowed on 10.12.2012. It is only for these reasons, the Appellate Court had directed to allow admission to the said petitioner in the next academic

session but in the present case the petitioner did not file any writ petition immediately raising her grievance for denial of admission, therefore, she

cannot be given premium of the order which has been passed in Gurukaran Singh''s case (supra), who was vigilant about his rights and had filed the

writ petition in time which though took some time in its decision which ultimately was decided in his favour and since the decision was taken in the

mid-stream in the month of December, even admission at that time could not be ordered to be given to him in the session 2012-2013 but he was

given admission in the academic session 2013-14. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is partly allowed to the

extent that 1% reservation for Sports Category is to be calculated in terms of the order passed by this Court in Gurukaran Singh''s case (supra) in

which it has been, held that 2% reservation meant for the terrorists affected persons would be calculated without deducting 25% reservation meant

for the Scheduled Castes but insofar as the second prayer of the petitioner for giving her admission in the academic session 2013-14 on the basis

of her merit in the year 2012 is concerned, the said prayer cannot be granted especially in view of the fact that the petitioner had never filed the

writ petition immediately in the year 2012 and also could not get admission in the academic session 2013-14 on the basis of her rank in the NEET-

UG-2013. The writ petition qua prayer of the petitioner for admission is, thus, dismissed.