Sabhya Kamal vs Versus

,,,,,,,,

Allowed as prayed for.,,,,,,,,

The petitioner, an aspirant for the M.B.B.S course has questioned the selection made by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32,",,,,,,,,

Chandigarh. Since the petitioner herself belongs to the Scheduled Caste category she has confined her challenge to this section of the selection.,,,,,,,,

Although other issues have also been urged before us with regard to the eligibility criteria intended for the U.T. Chandigarh, the challenge has been",,,,,,,,

largely confined to the benefit of reservation made admissible to the aspirants from other States.,,,,,,,,

The brief argument is that candidates who have been issued certificates of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes in the,,,,,,,,

neighbouring States such as Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan would be entitled to the benefit of reservation in their States and not in",,,,,,,,

U.T, Chandigarh. With regard to this learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled",,,,,,,,

as 'Sanjeev Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others ' reported as 2016 (13) SCC 105. The relevant observations are reproduced herebelow:-,,,,,,,,

“2. It is, in our opinion, unnecessary to set out in detail the factual matrix in which the controversy arises, partly because the order passed by the",,,,,,,,

High Court has already done so and partly because the question that essentially falls for our determination stands concluded by the judgments of this,,,,,,,,

Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S.Medical College and others â€" (1990) 3 SCC 130 and Action Committee on issue of Caste",,,,,,,,

certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra and Another v. Union of India and Another â€" (1994) 5 SCC 244.,,,,,,,,

The effect of both these judgments which happen to be Constitution Bench pronouncements, was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in",,,,,,,,

Melwin Chiras Kujur v. State of Maharashtra and others, disposed of on 14th September, 2015, by a Two-judge Bench of which one of us (Thakur,J.)",,,,,,,,

was a member. The question in Melwin's case (supra ) as in the case before us was whether a person belonging to any Scheduled Caste/Scheduled,,,,,,,,

Tribe in the State of his/her origin can claim the benefit of reservation upon his/her migration to another state. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and,,,,,,,,

Action Committee's cases(supra) this Court has answered the said question in the negative. In Melwin's case (supra) also while referring to the,,,,,,,,

Constitution Bench pronouncements of this Court, this Court has reiterated that the benefit of reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe",,,,,,,,

candidates, does not enure to candidates upon their migration to another State even in cases where the caste of those migrating from one State to the",,,,,,,,

other is recognized as a Scheduled Caste/Tribe in both the States. In Melwin's case (supra) this Court observed:,,,,,,,,

“The legal position as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant has been firmly settled by two decisions of the Constitution Bench,,,,,,,,

referred to by us in the earlier paragraphs. Benefits of reservation are not available to those migrating from one State to the other even if such,,,,,,,,

candidates belong to the same caste. That part of the controversy therefore stands concluded and does not require any further elaboration.â€​,,,,,,,,

In the case at hand the High Court has held and in our opinion rightly so that the appellants who are originally from the State of Uttar Pradesh were,,,,,,,,

not entitled to the benefit of reservation as Scheduled Caste candidates in the State of Bihar even when the caste to which they belong was found and,,,,,,,,

recognized as a Schedule Caste in both the states. To that extent, therefore, the judgment of the High Court is legally unexceptionable and does not in",,,,,,,,

our opinion call for any interference.â€​,,,,,,,,

Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the list given out by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as the 'CBSE'),,,,,,,,

wherein it has been stated that when candidates apply to their States they shall mention their category as per State category list and the State,,,,,,,,

counselling authorities will thereafter make their merit list. This is reflected from the following:-,,,,,,,,

“Responsibility of CBSE is to conduct the examination and declare the result based on eligibility criteria provided by MCI. Candidates were desired,,,,,,,,

to submit category as per National Category List. Based on the same result has been declared. CBSE has provided All India Rank to the candidates.,,,,,,,,

Admitting Authorities will draw merit list based on All India Rank for the seats of MBBS/BDS falling under their jurisdiction. When candidates will,,,,,,,,

apply to their State, they will mention their category as per State Category List. State counselling Authorities will accordingly make their Merit list.",,,,,,,,

The same is the case with the domicile. CBSE has no role in it and no change in any data will be made by the CBSE.â€​,,,,,,,,

Further information given out by the CBSE indicates that 1344 candidates were registered with Chandigarh, 1309 appeared out of which 940 qualified.",,,,,,,,

The whole emphasis of the argument is that if a person has claimed a particular State and placed in merit in the concerned State, he or she would be",,,,,,,,

enabled to get admission in that State but he/she cannot apply and avail a dual benefit in neighbouring State or for that purposes U.T. Chandigarh. It is,,,,,,,,

contended that whole scheme is intended to operate in this manner. Rather the whole scheme of selection in continuation of the guidelines given by the,,,,,,,,

CBSE would indicate a state quota to be filled up from those who opt, merit wise, and this is the reason why a separate option has to be exercised by",,,,,,,,

a candidate. This is evident from the information regarding the State quota seats given out by the CBSE extracted herebelow:-,,,,,,,,

Information regarding State Quota Seats:,,,,,,,,

“For State quota and other seats falling under the ambit of State, candidates may apply to their domicile states and a merit list as per State rules",,,,,,,,

and based on All India Rank will be prepared by concerned Counselling Authorities. The counselling for Private Medical Colleges will also be,,,,,,,,

conducted by the concerned State Counselling Authority.â€​,,,,,,,,

It is next contended that the eligibility condition enabling candidates who have only done their 10+2 from Chandigarh to get the benefit of U.T pool is,,,,,,,,

also arbitrary. We would for the purposes of reference extract the eligibility criteria for the 77 allocated seats to the Chandigarh.,,,,,,,,

A-3 Eligibility Criteria and admission procedure for 77 UT Chandigarh pool,,,,,,,,

xxx,,,,,,,,

The candidates should have passed 12th standard examination (qualifying examination) from schools/colleges recognized by the Chandigarh,,,,,,,,

Administration and situated in the Union Territory of Chandigarh, as regular student of the said school/college. This condition is waived off in respect",,,,,,,,

of wards of serving defence personnel/ex-servicemen vide letter no. 19/1/3-IH(3)-2007/18322 dated 14.9.2007.,,,,,,,,

A-4 : Eligibility criteria for UT Chandigarh Pool seats reserved for Scheduled Castes,,,,,,,,

The candidates must fulfill relevant General Eligibility Criteria (Page 7-8),,,,,,,,

The candidates must fulfill relevant Eligibility Criteria for UT Chandigarh Pool seats.,,,,,,,,

Respo

ndent

no. in

present

petitio

n","Name of

candidate","Father's

name","NEET

Roll no.","NEET

score/

Rank","Catego

ry",Course,"State by

which SC

certificate

was issued","College/ Institute

allotted in State

other than UT,

Chandigarh after

opting for a State

of their choice

R-9,Ritul,"Tejpal

Singh","501809

496",492,SC,MBBS,Haryana,"Pt.B.D.Sharma

PGIMS,

Rohtak

R-12,"Harsh

Kumar","Ramesh

Kumar","501818

706",483,SC,MBBS,Haryana,"Pt. B.D.Sharma

PGIMS,

Rohtak

R-16,"Kuldeep

Verma","Pyare

Lal

Verma","501814

169",431,SC,MBBS,Haryana,"SHKM Govt.

Medical

College

Nalhar, Mewat

R-18,"Manisha

Kumari","Satya

Pal

Singh","504007

371",428,SC,Dental,Haryana,"Pt. B.D.Sharma

PGIMS,

Rohtak

R-8,"Ankit

Alria","Surpana

nd Alria","501801

883",21193,SC,MBBS,Rajasthan,"SP MC,

Bikaner

R-15,"Sonal

Singh","Badri

Prasad

Jatav","502603

769",55065,SC,BDS,Rajasthan,"RUHS College

of Dental

Sciences

(GDC), Jaipur