Ramandeep vs State of Punjab and Others

Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.—The petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste, passed his 10+2 examination from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector 31, Chandigarh with 80% marks. He also cleared National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test 2013 [for short "the NEET"]. His father is working as Senior Accountant in Accountant General (A&E), Department of Punjab. The petitioner applied for admission and in the merit list exhibited by the University on 5.8.2013, he was at Sr. No. 192. In order to fill up MBBS seats in the State of Punjab, overall counseling was conducted in Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot. The petitioner appeared in the counseling and got the management seat in the SC category but later on he was told that since he was not fulfilling the eligibility condition as per Clause 14(a) of the Notification dated 5.6.2013 issued by the Government of Punjab, his seat has been allotted to some other candidate. Consequently, the present writ petition has been filed. In reply, filed by respondent No. 2/University, the reason for ignoring the petitioner is disclosed that after scrutinizing his documents, it was found that he had done his 10+1 and 10+2 examination from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector 31, Chandigarh, which is situated outside the State of Punjab and was not covered under any of the exemptions mentioned in Clause 14 of the Notification.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has passed his 10+1 and 10+2 examination from Chandigarh, which is being the Union Territory and also the Capital of the State of Punjab has to be treated as part of the State of Punjab and the admission cannot be denied on the ground that he has passed his 10+2 examination from outside the State of Punjab. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Raminder Singh Nagra v. Jagjit Singh Puri and others 2010 (2) S.C.T. 554 and decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP No. 24747 of 2012 titled as "Harleen Cheema v. State of Punjab and others decided on 27.8.2013.

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

It is not disputed that father of the petitioner is a Sr. Accountant in A.G. (A&E), Department of Punjab. The petitioner has passed his 10+2 examination from Chandigarh and according to his rank, he is eligible for admission but for the objection raised by the respondents that since he has passed his 10+2 examination from outside the State of Punjab, he would not be considered.

As a matter of fact, the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raminder Singh Nagra (Supra) because in that case also, father of the petitioner was working in the office of Accountant General, Punjab at Chandigarh. He sought admission in the MBBS course on the ground that the children of employees working in the State of Punjab were given preferential consideration in the matter of admission to MBBS course but the admission was denied on the ground that though he had passed 10+2 examination from Punjab but his father was not working in Punjab rather he was working in Chandigarh. It was held therein that Chandigarh being the Union Territory which is also the Capital of State of Punjab is to be treated as part of the State of Punjab and on that account it was ordered that the petitioner in that case was entitled to preferential consideration. The judgment in the case of Raminder Singh Nagra (Supra) has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harleen Cheema (Supra), in which the petitioner had cleared her 10+2 examination from Chandigarh and claimed admission from the State quota of Punjab. The reference was made to Clause 4(A)(vi) of the Notification dated 31.3.2008, in which it was provided that the candidate should have passed 10+2 examination or other qualifying examination in place of 10+2, as listed in 4(A)(i)(a) to (f), as candidate from a recognised institution situated in the State of Punjab only except for the exemptions wherever applicable. Following the decision in the case of Raminder Singh Nagra (Supra), the writ petition was allowed holding that the petitioner fulfills the requirements of having passed the qualification of 10+2 from the State of Punjab in terms of Clause (vi) of Para 4(A) of the Notification dated 31.3.2008 dealing with the admissions to MBBS/BDS course.

The case of the petitioner is also at par with the case of Raminder Singh Nagra (Supra) and Harleen Cheema (Supra) as he has also done his 10+2 examination from Chandigarh and has been ignored only on the ground that he had not passed the qualifying examination of 10+2 from the State of Punjab. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner forthwith for admission to the course in which he has applied.