Geetanshu Sethi vs State of Haryana

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to consider her candidature for admission in M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course against the seat reserved for Economically Backward Class in General category. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that she has secured 1103rd Category Rank in the State of Haryana and she belongs to Economically Backward Class category but she has been wrongly considered in the General category. As per the prospectus, the candidates were required to submit application forms up to 19.07.2013 (up to 5.00 p.m.). The date of first counselling was 30.07.2013 for General Category and 31.07.2013 for the Reserved Category. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that she has got the certificate of Economically Backward Class in General Category, on 29.07.2013 but she was not considered against that category in the counselling held on 30.07.2013 on the ground that the said certificate has been obtained after the cut-off-date i.e. 19.07.2013.

After notice, the respondents have appeared and reply has been filed in which it is averred that the petitioner did not mention in the application form that she belongs to Economically Backward Class category, rather she has mentioned that she belongs to General Category.

On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner has referred to the application form to contend that since she had specifically mentioned "Yes" against the column "Do you want to be considered in any of the Reserved category", therefore, she should have been considered in the Economically Backward Class category in the General Category.

In this regard, counsel for the respondents have submitted that the later part of the application form shows that the petitioner has not filled up 2nd and 3rd preference except for mentioning General Category in the 1st preference though it has been provided in the prospectus that if the candidate wanted to be considered for any other reserved category, then he/she was required to give the name of the reserved category in order of preference but the petitioner has kept the columns of 2nd and 3rd preferences blank in which she was required to fill up the names of the reserved categories as per her preference, namely, Economically Backward Class etc. which she has been now claiming on the basis of a certificate obtained on 29.07.2013.

Counsel for the respondents has also referred to Clause 11 of Chapter V of the Prospectus in which it is mentioned that "a candidate who applies either for reserved category or for both reserved and open categories will be considered first in open category. In case he is not selected in open category, he will he considered for reserved category. In case a candidate does not fill up his reserve category in his application form, he/she will not be subsequently considered for admission against that category". It is also submitted that in Clause 17 of Chapter VIII under the heading "General Instructions", it has been provided that "no change in category(ies) will be entertained/permitted at the later stage. However, the candidate who has been admitted against the general category seat shall not be shifted to reserved category seat at later stage".

It is, thus, submitted by the counsel for the respondents that since the petitioner has not filled up her preference with regard to reservation in the application form, she has not been considered against Economically Backward Class Category. Moreover, in view of Clause 17 of Chapter VIII, once the categories have been mentioned, it cannot be later on changed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not have any case on merit because she was required to fill up the application form in accordance with the instructions which provide that if she was claiming consideration against reserved category, she should have given the preference as provided in the application form because it has significance in terms of Clause 11 of Chapter V under the head of reservation and distribution of seats which says that a candidate may apply in reserved or open categories and he will be first considered in the open category and if he/she is not selected in the open category then he would be considered in the reserved category and in case a candidate does not fill up his reserve category in his application form, he/she will not be subsequently considered for admission against that category. In this case, the petitioner has not filled up the preference of the reserved categories and is subsequently claiming the reservation against the EBP category.

In view of the categoric rule, the petitioner herself has to be blamed who has lost her chance to compete in the reserved category of EBP which she has not given as her preference and merely writing "Yes" in the column of application form for consideration against the reserved category may not be suffice until and unless the said category is provided in order of preference in the application form. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.