Shamly Jindal vs State of Punjab

K. Kannan, J.—The petitioner stakes a claim for admission to medical college, as a person who is a resident of Punjab with 85% quota reserved for such residents. The petitioner would contend that she was born in Punjab although not residing in the State and hence, entitled to be treated as resident of Punjab. The petitioner challenges the notification issued on 07.03.2014 by the Government of Punjab that sets out an eligibility of the candidate to be not merely a resident of Punjab but also a person who should have passed his +2 from any institute, any school in Punjab. The petitioner''s candidature was sought to be kept out of reckoning within the 85% quota on the ground that she had finished her +2 schooling from Delhi which is outside the State of Punjab.

The contention on behalf of the State as well as the University is that a resident of Punjab cannot be merely a person who was born in Punjab as originally set forth in the policy issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Policies II Branch), dated 06.06.1996. The contention is that this policy issued in 1996 for the category of persons who would qualify for being treated as a resident came to be modified in so far as it related to its qualification for admission to medical colleges when the Department of Medical Education and Research has been consistently adding a requirement of a pass in +2 also from a recognized institution situate in Punjab. The counsel for the State would refer to the notification passed subsequently as well on 25.05.2001, 10.05.2002, 14.05.2003, 17.06.2004, 25.04.2005, 24.04.2006, 21.05.2007, 31.03.2008 and 05.06.2013, all of which have superadded a condition of person requiring to have passed +2 from a recognized institution situated in Punjab. The State would also refer to the fact that the notification issued requiring even a 10th class pass must be from an institute in Punjab has been a subject of challenge before this court and it remains suspended. According to the State, therefore, the petitioner cannot qualify for a consideration within the 85% quota.

The counsel for the University would add a second string to the bow, as it were, by mounting an attack that the petitioner''s candidature as a resident of Punjab was denied even the last year when she sought for admission within the Sate quota and in the counselling held for MBBS course session 2012-13, the University had declared her ineligible on the ground that she had passed her +2 examination from school situate outside Punjab. The counsel would urge that the petitioner had deliberately concealed this fact from the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the policy statement issued by the State for Punjabi University to follow (Annexure P1) would set forth the residence status as declared in the notification dated 06.06.1996 or a pass in 10+1 and 10+2 examination as a regular candidate from a recognized institute situate in Punjab. If there was a reservation policy that secured a person''s consideration within the State quota to be possible either at the instance of the person who is a resident within the definition of the notification dated 06.06.1996 or 10+1 and 10+2 examination from an institute in Punjab as one of the two alternatives, it was impermissible through a notification to add both requirements, namely, of the residential status as well as the pass in +2 within the State of Punjab. The counsel would refer me to a standing order which was issued on 09.07.2012 that in respect of Department of Personnel, any modification to the policy shall be placed before the Chief Minister for approval. One of the items mentioned in Schedule-I in the Standing Order is cases relating to interpretation and relaxation of rules/policy instructions''. If the policy instructions provided for one of two alternatives in the manner referred to above, it shall not be possible to make a notification making both the conditions as complementary.

The notification prescribing the residential status in Punjab and also requiring a 10+2 is founded on a primacy of importance to ''local candidates, a practice adopted literally by every State Government and what have found a judicial approbation in the Supreme Court as well. It is expected that a person that passes out of the college also serves within the State where he or she studied that would benefit the public in that State. As parochial as it might seem, there have been regional aspirations from various States of empowering the respective States, preference to the candidates domiciled in the State or who have studied from an institution established within the State. From a larger perspective of Pan-Indian growth, it might seem deleterious but in the strength of various States as units each clamouring for better performance, there is bound to be a sum of a national prosperity as well. In a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, the residential status for admission to medical college was put to challenge as violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, but the Supreme Court held that bias had a reasonable nexus to a larger good of the State development. We have deviated from the initial decisions which frowned upon such discrimination but the judicial approaches recently have been to accommodate the claims of the respective States to larger share of quota of institutes established in the respective States. If there is therefore a notification which is issued that places not merely the status of a person who is a resident of Punjab to be eligible as fulfilling the requirements but also requiring such a candidate to be a student of 10+2 in the State institute, which has groomed a candidate for admission to a medical college, it cannot be said to be arbitrary. I will test a challenge to the notification including +2 education from the standpoint of what it seeks to achieve. Even a separate consideration of merely a person studying in +2, he or she being a person not a resident of the State may not advance the interest of the State. It is in a conjoint requirement of a person who is a resident of State and such a person having also passed +2 from the institution situate in the State that will secure what is best to itself. The weightage of 85% to a State candidate seen from this perspective would only lead to a conclusion that if a person was not a student who has studied within the State, a requirement in a notification that prescribes such a qualification cannot be termed to be arbitrary. In Abhinav Aggarwal and Another Vs. Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court upheld a 75% reservation for students hailing from Delhi, who were also required to pass 10+2 exam from Delhi. The court was upholding three criterions (i) pass in 10+2 from Delhi; (ii) permanent resident of Delhi; (iii) MBBS degree also from Delhi. If the SC was upholding a condition of +2 school education from Delhi, even for PG courses, where normally rules of reservation are not easily tolerated, there is no reason why the requirement could not be imposed for MBBS.

The challenge is not as regards the arbitrary character but it is sought to be placed as a notification contrary to the policy already spelt out, the policy which required alternative situations, either being a resident or a person who has studied +2. The judicial intervention relating to policy are always minimal, but if a notification is pitched against a policy, so long as the notification itself does not violate the fabric of the policy but also adds an additional requirement which advances the State interest, I will not find that objection to the notification as so overwhelming to uphold the challenge. I would also find the objection taken by the University in so far as it brings home the fact of denial of the petitioner''s candidature of the previous year to be relevant. The petitioner could not have failed to disclose unless the object was oblique that she had attempted to enter through the State quota at the previous year and that she was rejected. She ought to have set out the fact before the court in an affidavit and explain how and under what circumstances, she led opposition to her candidature as falling within the State quota even the previous year. I do not think the petitioner has even been fair in approaching the court in failing to disclose a fact what was put against her.

The counsel for the petitioner has also a ground to urge that NRI quota cannot be appropriated from the general quota. I am not examining this issue, for, if the petitioner''s claim to admission is only on the 85% quota for the State and if that claims fails, the examination of how the NRI quota will be appropriated does not become relevant for the petitioner''s case.

The challenge to notification cannot survive successfully and I dismiss the writ petition.