High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
DR.AMANPREET KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors - CWP-6696-2005  RD-P&H 88 (3 August 2005)
State of Punjab and others.
Present: Mr.B.S.Walia Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.M.Munjal, Senior Additional Advocate General Punjab for respondent No.1.
Mr.Atul Nehra Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr.T.S.Dhindsa Advocate for respondent No.4.
S. N. AGGARWAL, J.
. The petitioner having qualified M.B.B.S from Government Medical College, Patiala in the year 2005 opted for seeking admission in Postgraduate Degree Course of MD/MS and she submitted her application for Postgraduate Entrance Test ( in short PGET) in 2005 . She appeared in the said test on 3.4.2005 under roll number 101024 under general category (Code No.11) and sports category (Code No.15). She was placed in overall rank at No.408 while she was at serial No.3 in the sports category.It may be stated here that the petitioner was a sports woman having participated in Senior National Women Fencing Championship held at Lucknow in the year 1998-99 and at Pune in the year 2001-
02. She was awarded Silver Medal in the said sports field in the year 1998-99. Undisputedly, the medical seats of MD and MS were distributed in two categories namely 60% for in-service (PCMS/PCMS (Dental)/PDES doctors) Civil Writ Petition No.6696 of 2005.
candidates while 40% seats were earmarked for open category. The petitioner belonged to the open category It is also not disputed that there were 2% reservation for sports persons in 60% category of in-service candidates while there was no such reservation for sports persons in the open category of 40%. It is also not disputed that there was no candidate in sports category in 60% in- service candidates. Therefore, those seats earmarked for sports persons in the 60% category were de-reserved and were filled from general category.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that 2% seats reserved for sports persons in 60% category for in-service candidates should not have been de-reserved and filled from general category. If the candidates were not available to fill those reserved seats these were liable to be transferred to the open category of 40%. In support of this submission, reliance was placed on clause 4.1 (C) of Prospectus, PGET 2005 issued by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences which reads as under:- "C. Conditions Which Apply to Both 60% (PCMS) And 40% (Open) Category:
(i) After exhausting all the eligible candidates under 60% quota including candidates against dereserved seats, if any, the vacant seats due to non-availability of eligible candidates shall be offered to the eligible candidates under 40% quota and vice-versa.
(ii)The seats left vacant from All India Quota and surrendered by the DGHS New Delhi shall be filled strictly on merit from the combined merit list of PGET-2005 being the merit seats." Civil Writ Petition No.6696 of 2005.
Hence, it was prayed that 2% seats earmarked for sports persons in 60% category if remained unfilled should have been transferred to the open category of 40%. Therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of availing appropriate category to which she was entitled to under this provision.
This submission was, however, countered by the learned counsel for the respondents. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Court rendered in Kamal Sachdeva v. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Kotkapura and another, Civil Writ Petition No.10007 of 2003, decided on 16.1.2004.
The perusal of this judgment reveals that a similar question had arisen before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the afore-mentioned judgment which is clear from its opening paragraph which reads as under:- "Whether the seats reserved for sports persons against 60% quota of in-service PCMS/PCMS (Dental)/PDES doctors which remained unfilled due to non-availability of the candidates of reserved category are liable to be transferred and offered to the sports persons of open category despite the availability of general category candidates of 60% quota is the question which arises for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." There was a similar corresponding provision in PGET-2003 in the form of Note-1 which was as under:-
"Note:-1 After exhausting all the eligible candidates under 60% quota, the vacant seats due to non-availability of eligible candidates, if any, shall be offered to the eligible candidates under 40% quota and vice-versa."
Civil Writ Petition No.6696 of 2005.
The Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment was pleased to hold as under:-
"In view of the above discussion, we hold that the petitioner,who had appeared in P.G.E.T-2003 as an open category candidate, cannot seek admission against the seat reserved for sports person in 60% quota and respondent No.2, who is at S/No.1 in the waiting list of 60% quota, is entitled to be admitted against the unfilled seat." The reasons recorded by the Hon'ble Division Bench for arriving at this conclusion read as under:-
"The scheme framed by the government for admission to Post Graduate Courses envisages separate ear-marking of seats for in- service doctors and open category. However, the policy of reservation contained in paragraph 8 cannot be stretched to violate the separate quota ear-marked for in-service candidates on the one hand and open category candidates on the other hand. If the eligible candidates of one quota are available for admission against the unfilled seat reserved for any sub-category specified in paragraph 8, then the same has to be offered to the candidate of general category of that quota and a candidate of reserved category, who had applied for admission against seats of the other quota, cannot claim admission against such seat."
We entirely agree with the reasoning given by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment.
In the present case, the wording of clause (C) is still on the higher footing than the corresponding provision discussed in the aforesaid judgment in-- Civil Writ Petition No.6696 of 2005.
as-much-as sub clause (1) of Clause C reads as under:- "After exhausting all the eligible candidates under 60% quota including candidates against de-reserved seats, if any, the vacant seats due to non-availability of eligible candidates shall be offered to the eligible candidates under 40% quota and vice versa." (bold for emphasis)
The bold wording was not in the corresponding clause in the judgment aforesaid. These wordings clearly remove the ambiguity, if there was any, in the meaning of this sub clause. It lays down unmistakably that if any seat of the reserved category of in-service candidates of 60% quota remains unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates, it has to be de-reserved and then filled from general category. It is to be transferred to 40% open category only if after de-reservation and after affording an opportunity to the candidates of general category within that quota still some seat remains unfilled and only then it is to be passed on to the open category of 40%.
In the present case, certainly after de-reservation of the sports quota seats, those were filled from the general category of 60% category of in-service candidates and no seat remained unfilled. Therefore, no seat was liable to be transferred to 40% open category under this provision. Hence, the petitioner has no case.
( S. N. AGGARWAL)
September 1,2005. ( J. S. KHEHAR )
Jaggi JU DGE
Civil Writ Petition No.6696 of 2005.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.