Civil Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2008 Date of decision: 11th April, 2008 Devinder Pal Singh Bagga … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab etc. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG Punjab for the State. Mr. T.S.Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3. Mr. R.S.Sihota, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. In the present writ petition, petitioner has sought quashing of admission of respondent No.4, Sh. Manjit Singh in the course of M.S./ Orthopedics in Government Medical College, Patiala through its Principal, respondent No.5 under the scheduled caste category being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to clause 14 and 28 read with clause 30 of the prospectus as according to the petitioner, the seat should have accrued to the petitioner, and fall under the category of riot victims. A further prayer was made that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondent No.2, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot and respondent No.3, Admission Committee, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot to grant admission to the petitioner. Petitioner had successfully passed MBBS examination in the year 2005 by securing 1st division. Petitioner also claims that on the basis Civil Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2008 2 of certificate (Annexure P-1), he is entitled to be considered in the category of riot effected victims. Respondent University issued a prospectus for admission to the course of MD/MS/PG Diploma, MDS and DM/M.Ch courses for the academic session 2007-08. According to the petitioner, out of the total seats in the part B of the prospectus, for Government institutions 50 per cent of the same were to be filled up by the Government of India on all India basis through All India Competitive Entrance Test. The remaining seats were to be filed up through the Post Graduate Entrance Test, 2007 (PGET-2007). Out of these seats, 60 per cent were to be filled up from amongst the in-service (PCMS/ PCMS Dental and PDES) candidates and 40 per cent from the open category. As per the prospectus, two per cent seats were reserved for wards of terrorism/ riot affected persons. It has been stated in the writ petition that as per percentage of 2 per cent, 3 seats fell to the quota of wards of terrorism/ riot affected persons. 2 sets fell in the quota of 60 per cent and one seat fell in the quota of 40 per cent, i.e. category to which petitioner belonged. In the Entrance Test, petitioner secured 181 position and was placed at Sr. No. 2 under the riot affected category. It has been contended before us by the petitioner that in the category of terrorism/ riot victims, there were 2 seats available in the course of M.D./ Orthopedics and only 1 seat existed for the riot affected victim under the stream of MD (Gynae). Since the petitioner was at No.2 in the 40 per cent quota, where only 1 seat existed as per reservation for riot affected victims, he could not be selected. Against the 2 seats for the riot victims to the post of M.D./ Orthopedics and 2 seats for sports category, nobody managed to secure 50 per cent of the marks, therefore these seats could not be filled up. The 2 seats existing in the stream of M.S./Orthopedics under 60 per cent quota in sports category were de-reserved and since there was no one available, same were offered to candidates in 40 per cent general Civil Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2008 3 category quota, which were subsequently filled up. However, 2 seats under the riot affected category which existed in M.S./Orthopedics stream under 60 per cent category were de-reserved and were offered to eligible candidates under 60 per cent quota in general category. One of these seats was accepted by a general category candidate. Since no other eligible candidate was available, grievance of the petitioner is that instead of shifting the same to riot affected category in 40 per cent quota, the same has been arbitrarily and illegally transferred to scheduled caste category to respondent No.4 and hence petitioner who was available against the riot affected victims category, has been denied admission even though he was available at No.2 as the No.1 had already got admission under this category in 40 per cent quota. Mr. T.S.Dhindsa appearing for the University has drawn our attention to clause 14(c)(i) and the same is reproduced below: “(c) Conditions Which Apply To Both 60% (PCMS) And 40% (Open) Category i. After filling up seats under 60% quota, including candidates against de-reserved seats in case of non availability of concerned category candidates, if any, the vacant seats shall be offered to the eligible candidates under 40% quota and vice-versa.” It has been contended by Mr.Dhindsa that while filling up the above seats under the 60 per cent quota, if the candidates are not available then the seats are to be de-reserved and thereafter vacant seats are to be offered to eligible candidates under 40 per cent quota and vice versa, meaning thereby if 2 persons under the category of wards of terrorism/ riot affected persons are not available the first process of de- reservation has to take place. Mr.Dhindsa has also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kamal Sachdeva v. Baba Farid Civil Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2008 4 University of Health Sciences, CWP No. 10007 of 2003 decided on 16.01.2004, wherein the following question was posed: “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.” After considering the rival submissions in Kamal Sachdeva’s Judgment (supra) the bench held as under: “Note-1 appearing below paragraphs 3 envisaged that seats of 60% quota remaining vacant due to non-availability of eligible candidates would be offered to the eligible candidates under 40% quota. Similarly, the vacant seats of 40% quota remaining unfilled due to non-availability of eligible candidates of that quota were to be offered to the candidates of 60% quota. To put it differently, the vacant seats ear- marked for in-service doctors could be offered to the open category candidates and vice-versa only if the eligible candidates of the particular category were not available. Paragraph 8 of the notification which provides for reservation of seats for different categories including sports persons does not contemplate transfer of reserved seat of one quota to the other quota. This being the position, the petitioner, who had applied for and appeared in P.G.E.T.-2003 as an open category candidate cannot seek admission against the vacant seats of 60% quota reserved for sports persons because as per the undisputed factual position put forward by the parties, large number of eligible candidates of 60% quota are available for admission against unfilled reserved seats.” In the above said judgment, it was also concluded that after the de-reservation of the quota in 60 per cent in-service candidates Civil Writ Petition No. 1022 of 2008 5 category, reserved category seats are not to be transferred to 40 per cent quota as de-reservation is to be adhered to. Kamal Sachdeva’s judgment (supra) apply to the facts of this case. In view of the ratio of the above, we find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE April 11, 2008 rps