Manju Rani vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.—Manju Rani, petitioner, has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking the directions of this court against the respondent-authorities to fill-up the vacant seat of female candidate against the reservation quota of category of ''Rural Area'' for the course of Elementary Teachers Training Course by granting admission to her as she is the only candidate available against the said seat.

The case set up by the petitioner is thai she appeared in the test for the E.T.T. Course for the year 1997-99. As per the prospectus 2% seats were reserved for the candidates of rural area, i.e. one seat for female candidate and one for the male candidate. The petitioner appeared as a female candidate under the Rural Area category and she was placed at waiting list No. 2. The grouse of the petitioner is that Baljit Kaur d/o Jagir Singh, roll No. 100283 did not join the course as a result of that the seat went to Sumneesh Rani. She too did not get the scat and, in this manner, the seat comes to the petitioner as she was at wailing list No. 2.

The case ofthe petitioner is being disputed by the respondent-authorities and their stand is contained in para-9 of the written statement, which reads as under :-

''In reply to this para it is submitted that 2% seats are reserved for the candidates of Rural Area i.e. one for male and one for female. Baijit Kaur d/o Shri Jagir Singh Roll No. 100283 has been shown in the select list and Sumneesh Rani d/o Sh. Sat Pal Bansal Roll No. 101998 with 137.00 marks has been placed at serial No. 1 of the waiting list and the petitioner with 136.00 has been placed at serial No. 2 of the waiting list. Roll No. 100283 has not joined the course. Sumneesh Rani d/o Shri Sat Pa! Bansal Roll No. 101998 with 137.00 marks has since filed COCP No. 989 in CWPNo. 7345 of 1998. The same is fixed for arguments on 13.10.1999. Hence petitioner has no claim for admission."

In short the stand of the respondent-authorities is that the petitioner has been deprived of the seat because of the contempt petition filed by Sumneesh Rani.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

There is no dispute that 2% seats were reserved for Rural Area candidates and one seat was to go to female candidate and one to the male candidate. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was placed at waiting list No. 2. The only point for determination is whether the petitioner gets any right to get the seat or not ? In view of the stand taken up by the respondents, which I have quoted above, it will become clear that at the first instance, this seat was to go to Baljit Kaur but she has not joined the course. Then, this seat has to go to Sum-nessh Rani. She too has lost her right. She filed a contempt petition, which was dismissed on 27.10.1999. A reading of the order passed in the contempt petition would show the Sumnesh Rani wanted to claim the seat on the ground that it was never offered to her.

Be that as it may, the present petition stands disposed of with the directions to the respondent-authorities that firstly they wit! write a letter to Sumneesh Rani and in case she is not interested or does not join the course, then the seat shall be offered to the peti-tioner in the session 2000- 2002. Even if an additional eat is to be created it shall be created.

Counsel for the respondent submits that the peti- tioner applied for admission in the ETT Course for the year 1997-1999. The course has already been completed and, therefore, she cannot be given the chance to get the seat for the sessions 2000-2002.

I do not subscribe to the submission of the counsel for the respondents for the simple reason that if the injustice has been to a candidate, it has to be rectified. If the respondent-authorities are at fault, how they can take the benefit of their own wrong ? They should have adopted a judicious approach in such like matters. These are admission matters relating to the career of candidates. These matters cannot and should not be taken lightly by the admission authorities. The action on the part of the admission authorities should be crystal clear and apparent. If two candidates were not interested in the course, a chance must have been given to the petitioner. This procedure has not been adopted by the respondent-authorities.

No costs.

Petition allowed.