Rupinder Sahota vs State of Punjab and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—Whether Respondent No. 5--Ankit Goyal and Respondent No. 6--Jasraman Kaur, who are wards of Ex-servicemen, could be denied admission to M.B.B.S. course against the seats reserved for children/widows of defence personnel killed or disabled to the extent of 50% or more in action, wards of gallantry awardees, children of serving personnel/Ex-servicemen simply because in the application forms filled for entrance test, they had shown their category as general is the only question which arises for determination in this petition filed by the Petitioner for quashing their admission to M.B.B.S. course at Government Medical Colleges, Patiala and Amritsar respectively and for issuance of a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to admit her to the said course.

For deciding the aforementioned question, we may briefly notice the facts. In pursuance of the Government of Punjab, Department of Medical Education and Research notification No. 5/ 1/2002-5HBIII/2246 dated 10th May, 2002, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (for short, the University) issued prospectus for Pre-Medical Entrance Test (for short, PMET)--2002. The Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 applied for admission to PMET--2002. They filled Optical Mark Reader (OMR) Application Forms in accordance with the instructions contained in Annexures ''E'' and ''F'' of the prospectus issued by the University. In column No. 8, the Petitioner gave code ''19'' meant for reserved category mentioned hereinabove and the wards of Punjab Police Men decorated with gallantry medals. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 gave code ''11'' meant for general category. The result of PMET--2002 was declared by the University on 21st July, 2002. The same was published in the form of Gazettee PMET--2002. The Petitioner secured 552 marks as against 592 marks secured by Respondent No. 5 and 568 marks secured by Respondent No. 6. After the declaration of result, they filled admission forms attached to the prospectus. The Petitioner indicated her category as ward of Ex-serviceman with code ''19''. However, in view of para 10 of the General Information contained in the advertisement issued by the Co-ordinator, PMET--2002 and the note printed at the back of the cover page of Gazette PMET--2002 published by the University, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 indicated their cagetories as Ex-servicemen with code ''19'' and general with code ''11''; A large number of other candidates also indicated their choice for more than one cagetories. All of them appeared in counselling held by the University. At the end of the counselling, category-wise lists were issued by the University and displayed on the notice board. The merit list of the candidates, who had applied in the reserved category of children/widows of defence personnel killed or disabled to the extent of 50% or more in action, wards of gallantry awardees, children of serving personnel/Ex-servicemen, contained the following names and particulars:

S. No R. No. Name Father''s Name P.M.E.T. Marks

1 361050 Amandeep Kaur Bhatti Karamjit Singh Bhatti 620

321092 Ankit Goel J.K. Goel 592

323258 Rishu Saini Rashpal Singh 584

363014 Jasraman Kaur Balwinder Singh 568

323131 Prabha Devi Chhetri D.B. Chhetri 556

365059 Ratika Sharma Sukriti Sharma 556

342226 Manpreet Reen Hardev Singh 552

343243 Rupinder Sahota R.S. Sahota 552

Ms. Amandeep Kaur Bhatti, who was at No. 1 in the merit list, was admitted at Government Medical College, Patiala against the general seat because her merit was higher then the general category candidates. Respondent No. 5, Rishu Saini and Respondent No. 6, who were placed at Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively were admitted against three seats earmarked for reserved category for which they had applied.

The Petitioner has challenged the admission of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that after having shown themselves as candidates belonging to general category at the time of admission to PMET--2002, they cannot change their category and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 committed a grave illegality by considering their candidature for admission against the seats earmarked for reserved category which included children of Ex-servicemen. Her plea is that by having shown themselves as candidates of general category in the application forms for PMET--2002, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 will be deemed to have given up their right to be considered against the reserved seats and, therefore, they could not have been admitted against the reserved seats meant for children of serving defence personnel and Ex-servicemen etc. She has further pleaded that the University committed serious illegality by not giving her the benefit of preference in terms of para 8(vii) of the prospectus.

Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 7 have filed joint written statement: to contest the writ petition. Their case is that as per note printed on the back of the cover page of the Gazette PMET--2002 published by the University, a candidate was entitled to indicate more than one categories and final merit position was required to be prepared keeping in view the number of candidates applying in the particular category. According to them, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had applied for admission under general category as well as wards of defence personnel and they were admitted against the reserved seats as per their placement in the list of that category.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the University, it has been averred that as per Punjab Government notification dated 10th May, 2002,1% of the total seats in the State Government Medical Colleges were reserved for defence category without any preference to any sub-category and as such, the Selection Committees did not give any preference to any particular sub-category specified in para 8(vii) and (viii) of the prospectus. Along with the written statement of the University, clarification (Annexure R2/1) got published by Coordinator, PMET--2002, has been placed on record to show that in case of conflict between the eligibility conditions contained in the Government notification and those contained in the prospectus issued by the University, the former were to prevail. According to the University, all the admissions in the defence category were made strictly as per merit of the candidates without giving any priority or preference to any sub-category and as the Petitioner was lower in merit, she could not be admitted in that category.

Respondent No. 5 has filed as separate written statement. He has averred that while filling OMR form for PMET--2002, a candidate could give only one category, but in the admission form to be filled by the successful candidates, there was a choice of multiple categories and he had filled admission form showing his category as general as well as the ward of Ex-serviceman. He has further averred that even if he had not been selected against the reserved seat earmarked for wards of defence personnel etc., he would have been admitted in the general category because as many as 30 candidates of general category lower in merit than him were admitted in M.B.B.S. course and, therefore, he may not be deprived of his right to continue the studies in M.B.B.S. course. Along with the written statement, Respondent No. 5 has annexed copy of order dated 9th September, 2002 passed in C.W.P. No. 14446 of 2002--Ratika Sharma v. State of Punjab,--vide which a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ petition filed for challenging his admission against the reserved seat.

The Petitioner has filed separate replications to the written statements of Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 7 and 5. She has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. ILR 1985 (1) Pb. & Hy. 345 and averred that admissions of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of the conditions contained in the prospectus. She has further averred that note appearing on the back of the cover page of Gazette, PMET--2002 published by the University cannot be relied upon to justify the admission of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the reserved seats and in any case the same cannot be made basis for depriving her of the right to be admitted against the reserved seat.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, Clauses 1, 4(vii), extracts of Clauses 8-A and 9(g) of notification dated 10th May, 2002, as amended,--vide notification dated 29th May, 2002, column No. 8 of Annexure ''F'' attached to the prospectus, para 3 of the application form for admission and note-3 printed on the back of the cover page of Gazette PMET-2002 published by the University, which have bearing on the decision of the writ petition, read as under:

Clauses 1, 4(vii) and extracts of Clause 8-A and 9(g) of notification dated 10th May, 2002, as amended,--vide notification dated 29th May, 2002.

The Governor of Punjab is pleased to appoint the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot to conduct the Punjab Medical Entrance Test (PMET)-2002 in three compulsory subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology for selection of candidates for admission to MBBS/BDS and BAMS/BHMS course in the following institutions of the State as per detailes given below:

RESERVATION IN STATE MEDICAL/DENTAL AND AYURVEDIC COLLEGES.

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

(vii) Children/Widows of defence personnel killed or disabled to the extent of 50% or more in action. Wards of gallantry awardees, Children of the Serving defence personnel/ ex-servicemen.

MODE OF SELECTION AND ADMISSION

A. Interview shall be compulsory for all candidates to confirm the choice of station already given in the Application Form. However, the candiate may change the choice of station at the time of interview which will be final. In case the choice given by the candidate at the time of interview is different from that indicated-Interview cum- Admission form, the preference of station given at the interview time shall supersede his/her earlier choice. The dates of interview will be such as may be fixed by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot in consultation with the Director, Research and Medical Education and Chairpersons of various selection committee and the same shall be incorporated in the prospectus.

The interview will be held by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Fairdkot. The reserve category shall have the right to general seats also. As such interviews for the general and reserve seats of all categories shall be held together as is done in Punjab Technical University. Those reserve candidates who on merit opt for general seats will not be counted against.

The list of selected candidates for respective colleges would be displayed on the notice board of Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot daily at the end of interview giving name, roll number, PMET rank, category of the candidates and the category under which admission is given. Consolidated list of candiates selected for a college shall also be displayed on college notice board. The selected candidates will report to the respective colleges for admission and Medical examination on the dates fixed by the Chairperson of the various committee. At the time of interview, verification of the following documents/points regarding eligibility will be made.

xx xx xx xx xx xx

GENERAL CONDITIONS

(g) Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot will publish in the prospectus a detailed schedule for admission indicating date of availability of prospectus, last date for submission of applications, date of issuance of roll numbers, date of entrance test, date of result, date of submission of form for admission. Interview schedule and the schedule of operation of the waiting list.

Column No. 8 of Annexure ''F'' attached to the prospectus.

Column No. 8: Category code The candiate must select a category code from the category codes given below and fill in the appropriate ovals.

Categories Code

(i) General Category 11

(ii) S.C/S.T. 12

(iii) Backward classes 13

(iv) Border Area 14

(v) Backward Area 15

(vi) Sportpersons 16

(vii) Children/Grand children of Political sufferers/Freedom fighters 17

(viii) Disabled persons 18

(ix) Children/Widows of defence personnel killed or disabled to the extent of 50% or more in action. Wards of gallantry awardees Children of the Serving defence personnel/ex-servicemen & wards of Punjab Policemen decorated with Gallantry Medals. 19

(x) Children/Widows of para-military personnel Punjab Police PAP and Punjab Home guards personnel killed or disable in action to the extent of 50% or more and Children of service/ ex-para military personnel. 20

(xi) Children of November, 1987 riot affected displaced persons, children of army deserters killed/ 100% Physically disabled, children of the families of persons killed as a result of terrorist violence or by the security forces acting in aid of Civil Power and the children of innocent civilians who have sustained 100% disability in terrorist violence of during operation by security forces acting in aid of civil power. 21

XX XX XX XX XX XX

Para 3 of the application form for admission.

Category Names with codes

...Code...

... Code...

... Code...

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

Note-3 printed on the back of the cover page of Gazette PMET-2002.

A candidate may belong to more than one category and can apply for that in the admission form so it is likely that there may be more candidates in a particular category than specified in the gazette. Final merit position depending upon candidates applying/not applying for admission by submitting admission application form will be prepared and separately displayed on the notice board at the time of the counselling.

A conjoint reading of various clauses of the government notification, extracts of Annexure F and application form together with the note appearing on the back of the cover page of -Gazette PMET-2002 shows that the scheme of admission to M.B.B.S. and other medical courses was divided into two parts. The first part which can appropriately be described as preliminary state, consisted of issuance of prospectus by the University in consonance with the provisions contained in notification dated 10th May, 2002 (as amended), filling up of OMR Application Form by the candidates and holding of PMET-2002 by the University and publication of the result in the Gazette PMET-2002. The second part which can be described as the final stage, consisted of submission of application forms by the candidates in the prescribed proforma, display of category-wise lists (sic) on merit position, holding of counselling and the allocation of per (sic) their merit and preference for the particular college/(sic)

In our opinion, the object of holding PMET-2002 was to determine the suitability/comparative merit of the candidates for admission to M.B.B.S. and other medical courses and the mere passing of the test did not entitle candidates to get admission in a particular course as of right. For that, they were not only required to submit fresh applications in the prescribed form, but also fulfil the conditions prescribed under clauses 8 and 9 of notification dated 10th May, 2002 (as amended). This must be the reason why the candiates were specifically informed that they are not required to attach any document with OMR Application Form and the certificates and documents necessary for determining the eligibility of the candidates and their claim under reserved categories were to be submitted along with the application form to be filled after the declaration of the result. The entitlement of the candidates to be admitted against reserved seats was to be decided at the time of counselling. Therefore, the mere fact that choice given by the candidate in the Application Form filled for admission after publication of the result was different than the one indicated in OMR Application Form could not be made basis for depriving him/her of right to be admitted in the particular category as per merit.

A somewhat similar question was considered by the Full Bench in C.W.P. No. 11367 of 1997 Abhininder Singh Thind v. Panjab University, Chandigarh and Anr. decided on 3rd November, 1999. In that case, the Full Bench interpreted the provisions of the Panjab University Calendar, Volume-II and the prospectus issued by it for holding Entrance Test-1993 for admission to LL.B. course and hold that the Petitioner, who belonged to reserved category of Scheduled Caste cannot be deprived of his right to be admitted against the seat earmarked for that category merely because in the application form filled for Entrance Test, he had indicated his category as general. The relevant extracts of the judgment of the Full Bench read as under:

A conjoint reading of the provisions of the prospectus issued for Entrance Test-1997 and the Panjab University Calender shows that the eligibility conditions for the entrance test do not regulate admissions to the regular LL;B. (Professional) Course which is regulated by the provisions of the University Calendar. The plain language of paragraphs 2,18,19 and 34 of the prospectus makes it clear that mere passing of the entrance test does not entitle a candidate to get admission in the LL.B. course as of right. For that, he is not only required to submit fresh application form but also fulfil the conditions laid down in the University Calendar. There is no provision in the prospectus for reservation of Scheduled Castes etc. which is governed by the University Calendar. This is further clarified by the use of the non-obstante clause in para 34 and stipulation in para 18 that admissions shall be made on the basis of relative merit of the candidates subject to such reservations and weightages prescribed in the rules of admission of the University Department concerned. This, in our opinion, is also sufficient to remove any doubt about the limited scope of the provisions contained in the prospectus. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned Counsel for the Respondents that even though in column 9 of the application form submitted by him for admission to the LL.B. course the Petitioner had shown himself to be a member of Scheduled Caste and had produced the required certificate, he is not entitled to be considered for admission against the reserved seat because in the application submitted for admission to the Entrance Test-1997, he had declared himself to be a candidate of general category.

We are further of the view that as the prospectus issued for admission to the Entrance Test--1997 is silent about reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes etc., column 12 of the application form in which the candidates were required to indicate their category was superfluous and the entries contained in that column cannot be made basis for denying admission to a candidate who fulfils the conditions prescribed in the University Calendar.

The Full Bench also distinguished the judgment of the Division Bench in Sandeep Singh v. Panjab University 1996 (3) S.C.T. 767 by making the following observations:

Now a word about Sandeep Singh''s case. The facts of that case were that one Kumari Sukhbir Paul Kaur Sidhu had appeared in the entrance test as a general category candidate was admitted against the seat meant for reserved category. Petitioner--Sandeep Singh challenged her admission by contending that in view of para 29 of the prospectus, she was not entitled to change her category. After examining some of the provisions of the prospectus issued for admission to the Medical Colleges and considering the decisions of this Court in Ravinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. (1985) 1 ILR (P&H) 343, Sumit Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1994(4) SCT 147(P&H), Raj Singh v. The Maharshi Dayanand University 1994(2) Services Cases Today 766 and Minakshi Gupta and Ors. v. Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology and Ors. 1992(5) SLR 122, the Division Bench held that Kumari Sukhbir Paul Kaur was not eligible for admission against the reserved seat. In our opinion, the view taken in Sandeep Singh''s case, which appears to be based solely on para 29 of the prospectus issued for holding the entrance test for admission to the Medical Colleges, which is pari materia to para 32 of the prospectus issued by the University for Entrance Test-1997, cannot be relied upon for holding that the eligibility conditions prescribed for admission to the entrance test should be treated as a part of the scheme of admission which is governed by the provisions of the University Calendar. It appears that in Sandeep Singh''s case the conditions of eligibility for admission to the entrance test as well as regular admission to the M.B.B.S. course were identical or attention of the Court was not drawn to the difference in the conditions of eligibility prescribed for the entrance test on the one hand and the regular admission on the other hand. Therefore, that decision cannot be treated as a precedent for holding that even though the conditions of eligibility prescribed for admission to the entrance test and regular admission are different and mere passing in the entrance test does not entitle a candidate to seek admission in the regular course, a candidate of reserved category can be denied admission to the regular course against the seats reserved for his category simply because in the application form for entrance test he had indicated his category as General. Rather, we hold that a candidate who has applied for admission to the regular course of the University as a candidate of reserved category cannot be denied consideration for admission against such category merely because he indicated himself to be a member of general category in the application form submitted for entrance test.

In our opinion, the ratio of the Full Bench decision is squarely applicable to the case in hand. Therefore, we hold that Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 did not commit any illegality by admitting Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 against the seats reserved for children of Ex-servicemen etc. as per their placement in the merit list of that category and we do not find any justification to cancel their admission or issue a writ of mandamus for admission of the Petitioner against one of the three seats reserved for that category.

The plea of the Petitioner that the official Respondents were bound by the conditions laid down in the prospectus issued by the University is being mentioned by us only to reject the same because she has failed to prove that admissions of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are violative of the conditions of eligibility prescribed by the State Government. We are also not impressed by the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that his client is entitled to be admitted against the reserved seat by invoking preference clause contained in the prospectus issued by the University. In this context, it is sufficient to observe that the University was bound by the conditions of eligibility and the criteria laid down by the State Government and it did not have the authority to lay down a new criteria for making admissions. This position was appropriately clarified by clarification Annexure R2/1 got published by the Co-ordinator, PMET-2002.

No other point has been argued.

For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.