State of Punjab vs Dr. Vanita Bansal

N.K. Sodhi, J.—This appeal filed by the State of Punjab under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 8.1.2001 whereby civil writ petition 11962 of 2000 was partly allowed and a direction issued to respondents No. 1 and 4 therein to admit the petitioner against one of the two seats under the sub-category of hearing impairment'' and ''orthopaedically handicapped'' persons if those seals had already not been filled or given to any other candidate. Facts giving rise to the appeal which are not in dispute may first be noticed.

Admissions to the Three-year Post Graduate Degree Courses for the session 2000 in Government Medical Colleges in Punjab, Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, Dental Colleges in Punjab and Government Ayurvedic College, Patiala were made on the basis of the merit obtained by the candidates in the Post Graduate Entrance Test which was conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (for short the University). Out of the total seats, 25% were to be filled on All India basis through acompetilive entrance lest. Of the remaining seats, 60% were filled from amongst the eligible P.C.M.S./P.C.M.S. (Den-tal)/P.P.E.S. in-service doctors while the remaining 40% seats .were filled from amongst non-P.C.M.S./P.C.M.S. (Dentaal)/P.D.E.S. through the entrance test conducted by the University. Clause 8 of the prospectus issued by the University provides tor reservation of seats for various categories to the aforesaid course. Amongst other 3% seats were reserved for physically handicapped persons which were further divided into sub-categories as under :

(i) Blindness/lower vision : 1%

(ii) Hearing impairment; 1%

(iii) Orthopaedically Handicap : 1%

If candidates of one category as referred to above were not available/eligible then the seats were to be carried to other sub-category under the provision of physically handicapped. Note 6 to clause 8 provides that the above reservation would be made in each subject/college separately subject to the availability of seats as per instructions issued by the Government of Punjab from time to time. It further provides that a hundred point roster was "to be maintained category-wise, subjects-wise and institution-wise with base year 1993. In case eligible candidates for admission against the reserved category were not available then such seats were to be offered to general category candidates and vice-versa. The prospectus also informed the s_tu-dents and all concerned in regard to the distribution and number of seats available in various courses/specialities/categories at Government Medical/Den-tal/Ayurvedic Colleges at Amritsar, Patiala and Faridkot and in Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana. The break up of seats and number of seats available for admission to various Post Graduate Courses at Government Medical Colleges, Amritsar, Patiala and at other institutions both under 60% quota and 40% quota were also notified in the prospectus. A perusal of the prospectus would show that no seat had been reserved in Government Medical College, Amritsar in the speciality of M.D. (Ob. and Gynae) for a handicapped person. However, one seat in the sub-category of blindness/low vision was reserved for physically handicapped persons in Government Medical College, Patiala and according to the roster as maintained by the State Government, no other reserved seat was available for this year under the category of physically handicapped persons in any other institution. Dr. Jas-bir Singh respondent was admitted against the solitary seat available at Government Medical College, Patiala in the speciality of M.D. (Ob. and Gynae) under the reserved handicapped category. Dr. Vanita Bansal who could not given admission on the basis of her merit in the entrance test was placed at No. I on the waiting list in the general category. She filed civil writ petition 11962 of 2000 in this court challenging the admission granted to Dr. Jasbir Singh on the ground that the latter had applied for admission under the sub-category of Orthopaedically handicapped person and, therefore, he could not be given admission at Patiala where the seat was reserved for the sub-category of blindness/low vision. She also made a prayer that since no candidate in the sub-category of blindness/low vision was available the vacant seat should have been transferred to the general category as per the stipulation contained in the prospectus and the same be given to her as she was No. 1 on the waiting list. Another plea raised in the writ petition was that 3% of the total seats had been reserved for physical handicapped persons and out of a total of 106 seats available, at least three seats should have gone to this reserved category and that on account of non-availability of such candidates only Dr. Jasbir Singh had been admitted whereas the other two seats were still vacant which should have been diverted to the general category candidates and one of which should have been given to the writ petitioner as she was No. I on the waiting list. Both the pleas were considered by the learned single Judge who found no merit in the first contention. He referred to the provisions of the prospectus and came to the conclusion that even though Dr. Jasbir Singh had applied for admission under the sub-category of physically handicapped person he could be given admission against the other sub-category of blindness/low vision as the prospectus provided that if candidates of one sub-category were not available/eligible then the seats could be carried to the other sub-category. It is common case of the parties that no eligible candidates was available under the sub-calegory of blindness/low vision. As regards the second plea, the learned single Judge was of the view that 3% seats had been reserved and out of the 106 seats that were available in Government Medical Colleges at Patiala and, Amritsar at feast three should have gone to reserved category of physically handicapped persons. The learned single Judge further held that since only one seat in this category had been filled the other two should be presumed to be vacant even though there was a specific denial in this regard from the side of the respondents. It appears that the original hundred point roster with base year 1993 which is being maintained by the State Government was not produced before the learned single Judge and he, therefore, observed that no such roster had been maintained and, therefore, three seats ought to have been given to the reserved category of physically handicapped persons. Consequently, a direction was issued to respondents No. 1 and 4 therein to admit the petitioner if the two seats reserved for physically handicapped persons were available. Hence the present appeal by the State.

We have heard counsel for the parties and are of the view that the appeal deserves to succeed. As regards the admission given to Dr. Jasbir Singh, the learned single Judge has found that he was rightly admitted in the speciality of M.D. (Ob. and Gynae) since no eligible candidate was available in the sub- Category of blindness/low vision. The writ petitioner had not come up in appeal against the decision of the learned single Judge and, therefore, we will not interfere with the finding of the learned single Judge on this issue. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that in terms of the prospectus the teamed single Judge was right in holding that in the absence of any eligible candidate in the sub-category of blindness/low vision for which one seat had been reserved in Government Medical College at Patiala, Dr. Jasbir Singh respondent could be given admission who had applied in the sub-category of orthopaedically handicapped persons.

Now coming to the second plea raised by the writ petitioner, we find that there is no merit in the same as it is based on a total misunderstanding of the provisions contained in the prospectus. It is tr e that 3% seats had been reserved for physically handicapped persons which were further sub-divided in three sub-categories as referred to above. According to Note 6 to clause 8 of the prospectus the reservation is made in each subject/college separately subject to availability of seats as per the instructions issued by the Government of Punjab from time to time. The State Government maintains a hundred point roster category-wise, subjects-wise and institution-wise with a base year of 1993.3% reservation is in the overall roster of hundred seats and not for each years. The original roster as maintained by the State Government was produced for the first time before us in court. A perusal thereof would show that the first seat which is reserved for the physically handicapped person is at roster point No. 33 which has now been filled up. The next seat would be when the admission reaches to the roster point at 66 which is reserved for the sub-category of hearing impairment. The third seat reserved is at roster point 99. These seats would be filled up in future. In view of the roster, the respondents were justified in reserving the roster point 33 for physically handicapped persons in the sub-category of blindness/low vision. We are, therefore, satisfied that as per the roster maintained there was only one seat available which couldbe given to a physically handicapped person and, as observed earlier, has been rightly given to Dr. Jasbir Singh. There is no other seat available for the category of reserved candidates and, therefore, there was no question of diverting any seat to the general category and grant admission to the writ petitioner.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is so far as it directs the respondents to grant admission to the writ petitioner set aside. There is no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.