COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 14.11.2008 Binish Kathuria ...Petitioner VERSUS Jagjit Puri and another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for petitioner Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab Mr.A.R.Takkar, Advocate Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner filed CWP No.6999 of 2007 challenging Clauses 13 and 14 of the Notification No.5/8/2007-3HB3/1334 dated 21.3.2007 as violative of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri and another v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 361 and also prayed to consider the candidature of graduates for admission to P.G. Degree/Diploma Courses during the session 2007 on the basis of institutional preference only. The aforesaid writ petition came to be decided vide judgment dated 12.7.2007 by this Court. Following observations have been made in the aforesaid judgment:- COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :2: “...In view of above, challenge to Clause 13 of the impugned notification has been rendered unnecessary. Needless to observe that the State of Punjab is bound by the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurabh Chaudhri (supra), that reservation for Post Graduate courses has to be based on institutional preference and not on place of residence, apart from other permissible constitutional reservations...” This Court relied upon the case of Saurabh Chaudhri (supra) wherein following observations were made:- “...We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to post-graduate courses, such as MS, MD and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. But, having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to post-graduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :3: college or University, may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the same medical college or University but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the post-graduate course. This outer limit which we are fixing will also be subject to revision on the lower side by the Indian Medical Council in the same manner as directed by us in the case of admission to the MBBS course. But, even in regard to admissions to the post-graduate course, we would direct that so far as super specialities such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are concerned, there should be no reservation at all even on the basis of institutional preference and admissions should be granted purely on merit on all-India basis. It in no uncertain terms direction: The decisions reached by us in these writ petitions will bind the Union of India, the State Governments and Administrations of Union Territories because it lays down the law for the entire country and moreover we have reached this decision after giving notice to the Union of India and all the State Governments and Union COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :4: Territories.” After passing of the aforesaid judgment, petitioner made a representation dated 20.7.2007 for implementation of the judgment. Even when this judgment was not implemented, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition. When notice of this petition was issued, respondents sought time to implement the judgment. Respondent issued a notification dated 27.6.2007 allegedly in compliance of the judgment. However, it was found that the Notification is not in consonance with the judgment of this court where under eleven seats out of 21 seats available for General Category candidates in the State Medical Colleges were reserved by way of institutional preference to the exclusion of the petitioner. It was found that the judgment has not been carried out in letter and spirit. Accordingly, counsel for the respondents-State sought further time to comply with the judgment and consequently a Corrigendum dated 14.8.2008 has been issued whereby Clause 13 has been deleted from the Original Notification dated 17.3.2008. This Corrigendum, however, satisfies the court judgment. Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has vehemently argued that though the respondents have complied with the judgment by issuing the Corrigendum, but it has taken more than two years to comply with the judgment and the petitioners have been deprived of their right for seeking admission in Post-Graduate Courses for more than two years which has adversely affected their career. His further contention is COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :5: that even though the judgment has been complied, but for more than two years, the respondents have committed the contempt of court and they should be punished in accordance with law. There seems to be substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondents have issued the Corrigendum after one year of the passing of the judgment. It has definitely adversely affected the career of the petitioner. However, since the respondents have now complied with the judgment and have also tendered unconditional apology, I decline to impose any punishment. However, keeping in view the fact that it has adversely affected the career of the petitioners, I award compensatory costs to all the petitioners in CWP No.6999 of 2007 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each. This amount shall be deposited by the respondents-State before this Court for disbursement to the petitioners in the writ petition within a period of four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the contempt proceedings shall stand revived. Disposed of. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 20.5.2008 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES/NO COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :6: