C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : 16.3.2011 Gagandeep Kaur PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Punjab and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri S.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri K.S.Dadwal, Advocate for respondent-2. Shri R.K.Mattoo, Advocate for respondent-4. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 Baba Farid University, Faridkot to treat the petitioner eligible for admission to the B.D.S. Course conducted by it and its affiliated colleges under the 85% quota meant for the students of Punjab. She has further prayed that she be allocated a seat in Baba Farid University, Faridkot. The grievance of the petitioner is that she belongs to the Scheduled C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -2- Caste category and has done her 10+2 from a school in Sirsa which school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. She competed in the P.M.E.T. for the year 2010 and obtained 476 marks, but since she belongs to the reserved category, her rank indicated in the result card was 188. She was admitted to Gian Sagar College, Banur, District Patiala, having been considered against the 15% quota meant for students of the area other than Punjab. Her grievance is that she should have been admitted in the category of seats meant for the residents of Punjab, which quota has been fixed as 85% by the respondents, especially when she was also born in the State of Punjab. To support the case of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on her behalf has referred to Clause 7.7 of the prospectus where it has been defined that 85% seats are to be reserved for the students of Punjab. The same is extracted here below :- “7.7 15% seats out of the seats to be filled through PMET in BDS/BAMS/BHMS shall be open to candidates having passed 10+2 examination or equivalent examination with Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English from the recognized institutions all over the country. However, if the requisite number of eligible qualified candidates are not available under 85% State Quota the vacant seats shall be transferred to 15% quota and vice-versa. (Para modified vide Corrigendum No.5/3/08-3HBIII/ 4563 dated 23.7.2008 and Corrigendum No.5/3/08- 3HBIII/3189 dated 27.4.2010).” C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -3- He has then referred to the notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms which further defines the persons who can be considered eligible to be the residents of the State of Punjab. The relevant extract of the notification is as below :- “I am directed to invite your attention to the Punjab Government Circular Letter No.1/3/95/3PPII/2043, dated 29.1.1996 vide which the instructions were issued regarding simplification of procedure for obtaining the certificate of Domicile for the purpose of admission to educational institutions (including technical/Medical institutions). The matter has been reconsidered in the light of judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr.Pardeep Jain v. Union of India and others (reported as AIR 1984-SO-1421) wherein it was held that instead of the word “Domicile”, the word “Resident” be used in the instructions issued by the State Government on the subject. Accordingly, it has been decided by the Government to revise the Government instructions referred to above, as under :- CATEGORIES AFFIDAVIT/CERTIFICATE AND THE AUTHORITIES COMPETENT TO ISSUE THE SAME. (a) Citizens of India (b) Produce an affidavit to the effect that they Affidavit of the parent/guardian to or their children/wards have not obtained be attested by an Executive the benefit of Residence in any other Magistrate/Oath Commissioner/ State. Notary Public. (I) Candidates who have studied for a period Certificate to be issued by the Head/ of 5 years in Punjab or have studied in Principal of the Govt. and Punjab for 2 years just preceding the recognized Schools/Colleges qualifying examination for the admission. concerned. (II) Children/wards of : Certificate to be issued by respective (a) The employees of Punjab Government Head of the Department. posted in or outside Punjab State or working on deputation having at least 3 years of service. (b) the employees of Govt. of India -do- posted in Chandigarh or in Punjab in connection with the affairs of the Punjab Govt. for a period of 3 years. C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -4- (c) The employees of State Govt. -do- institutions/undertakings who are posted in Chandigarh or in Punjab in connection with the affairs of the Punjab Govt. for a period of 3 years. (d) The employees having at least 3 years -do- of service in autonomous bodies/companies in which Punjab Govt. has 20% or more shares. (III) Children/wards of the pensioners of Punjab PPO issued by the Accountant Govt. irrespective of the fact that the General, Punjab. original home of the retire is in a State other than Punjab or he has settled after retirement in or outside Punjab. (IV) Children/wards of persons who have Certificate to be issued by the DC, settled in Punjab or had resided in Punjab ADC(R), ADC(D), SDO(Civil), GA for a period of at least 5 years at any time to DC, DORG, DRO, EM, prior to the date of the submission of Tehsildar, Commissioners of of application either in pursuit of a Municipal Corporations of profession or holding a job. Amritsar, Jalandhar and Ludhiana. (V) Children/wards of persons who have held DC, ADC(R),ADC(D), SDO(Civil), immovable property in Punjab for a GA to DC, EM, DORG, Tehsildar/ period of five years. The property should DRO based on copies of be in the name of the parent/guardians or Jamabandi, Revenue Record, the candidate himself. Municipal record, Registered Deeds or any other document to the full satisfaction of D.C. (VI) Persons who were born in Punjab and As per Category (IV) above. produce a certificate to that effect. 2. For the purpose of uniformity for issuing the certificate of Residence in the case of various categories to be issued by the competent authorities, proformas have been prescribed which are enclosed herewith. After careful consideration it has also been decided to delete the D.T.O., included among the certifying authorities against category (IV) & (VI) of the policy instruction dated 29.10.1996.” The attention of the Court was also invited to the eligibility criteria given out in the prospectus with specific reference to clauses 4.A(vi) and 4.A(viii) which are also extracted here below :- “(vi) Should have passed his/her and 10+2 examination or other qualifying examination in place of 10+2, as listed in 4(A)(i)(a) to (f) above, as candidate from a recognized institution situated in the State of Punjab only except for the exemptions wherever applicable. C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -5- The candidate would be required to submit a certificate to this effect from the Principal/Head of the Institute last attended in the prescribed proforma. (Para amended vide Corrigendum No.5/3/08/3HBIII/ 3389 dated 30.5.2008). ... ... ... (viii) The candidate should be bonafide resident of Punjab. The Resident status of the Punjab State, will be taken in terms of Punjab Government, Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms (PP II Branch) Letter No.1/3/95-3PP II/9619, dated 6th June, 1996, ID No.1/2/96-3PP-2/8976, dated 7th July, 1998 and ID No.Letter No.1/3/95-3PP II/81, dated Ist January 1999 and further instructions issued by the Department, if any and the same shall be adhered to in letter and spirits in PMET.” The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be summarily put as under :- That the petitioner was born in Punjab and has studied for 10 years in the State of Punjab and her father has been serving in the State of Punjab as the employee of the Government since 1988. On these two counts, her case falls within both the categories i.e. Category I and Category IV to entitle her to the benefit of the status of resident of Punjab as per the notification issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 6.6.1996 which has been incorporated in the prospectus and which finds reflection in Clause 4.A(viii) of the eligibility conditions. He thus, contends that once she is considered to be C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -6- the resident of the State of Punjab, she was entitled to be considered in the category reserved for the same against the 85% quota. The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/University, as also the counsel who is appearing for respondent No.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Baba Farid University has drawn the attention of this Court to the eligibility criteria for PMET as given out in Clause 4 of the prospectus and has stated that a detailed description of the qualifying examination has been given in so far as both the candidates appearing for the All India quota, as also the candidates appearing from the Punjab quota are concerned. He has contended with reference to this para that in the first para of clause 4.A(i), 10+2 and its equivalent examinations have been given which are to be treated as qualifying examinations and it is in the subsequent para of sub-clause (vi), it has been given out that a candidate should have passed his or her 10+2 examination or other qualifying examination in place of 10+2, as listed in 4(A)(i) (a) to (f) above, as candidate from a recognized institution situated in the State of Punjab only except for the exemptions wherever applicable. It is his contention that if this clause is read with clause 4.A (a) to (f), then it becomes abundantly clear that after giving the equivalent examinations of 10+2, the reasons to incorporate the condition of having passed 10+2 from the State of Punjab only is with a specific reference to the quota to be considered for the candidates belonging to the State of Punjab. He further contends that the condition on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance as given out in the notification of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, are merely meant for the purpose of giving out certificate that a candidate belongs to the State of Punjab, but this alone will not entitle such a candidate to any benefit of reservation unless he or she fulfills the qualification of passing 10+2 from a school in Punjab. He has thus, stated that the writ petition is misconceived and C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -7- deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends that the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence for two reasons, one that the certificate of her residence of State of Punjab is dated 30.7.2010, whereas the first counselling on the basis of which the admission was granted to the petitioner against the All India quota, stood concluded on 28.7.2010 and since she has not pressed for her claim on the date when she was being considered, she could not raise such a plea on a date subsequent thereto. That apart, it has been contended by him that the petitioner belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste candidates for which a notice was given out in the newspapers inviting such candidates for the second counselling, as it appears that the University was unable to fulfill all the seats belonging to this category and few others. The petitioner never applied for the same, but respondent No.4 did appear and was granted admission. He has referred to Annexure R-4/1 which is the notice given out, the relevant part of which is extracted here below :- “PMET-2010 COUNSELLING 2nd counselling for admission to MBBS/BDS and Ist counselling for BHMS will be held at GGS Medical College Faridkot daily from 8.30 am onwards as follows : ------------------------------------------------------------------------- MBBS : Aug.30, NRI in Govt. Colleges, SC (PMET Marks 360 and above), BC (PMET Marks 500 & above), Orthopaedically handicapped (PMET Marks 360 & above). Other reserved categories (PMET Marks 400 & above), General category (PMET Marks 540 & above.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------- C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -8- He thus, contends that the petitioner was having more than 360 marks, but failed to avail of this opportunity and at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to disturb the entire process by pressing her claim for admission against the Punjab quota. No other point has been alleged. On due consideration of the matter, I find that the petitioner has raised a misconceived grievance. The petitioner appeared for the first counselling on 28.7.2010 and was considered in the All India quota (15% seats). She was granted admission in Gian Sagar College, Banur District Patiala. The certificate which she has tried to press into service for her claim as against the Punjab quota, was procured by her subsequent thereto, implying thereby that on the date she was considered for admission, she did not have the requisite certificate to claim a reservation in the Punjab State. Besides, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 appears to be correct that the petitioner never participated in the second counselling which was meant for the Scheduled Caste category. The case of the petitioner does not merit acceptance on another count as well. She has stated with reference to the notification of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms that she fell within the category of candidates who could be considered to be the residents of the State of Punjab. There is no doubt that she would certainly qualify to be a resident of State of Punjab, as she has studied in Punjab for more than 5 years and that her father has been serving in the State of Punjab and holding a job there. It is also not in dispute that these instructions have been incorporated in the prospectus and further, still 85% seats have been reserved for such persons who belong to the State of Punjab, but the question that is to be determined, is whether ipso facto the grant of status of citizen of Punjab would entitle her to be considered against the category meant C.W.P. No.20019 of 2010 -9- for the persons having such a status. The answer has to be in the negative, because of condition No.4.A(a) to (f) which lays down that a candidate should have passed his or her 10+2 examination or other qualifying examination in place of 10+2 as listed in clause 4.A(a) to (f) or a recognized institution situated in the State of Punjab only, except for the exemptions wherever applicable. Thus, it is evident that these two conditions are mutually exclusive of each other. A candidate who claims the benefit of residential status of the State of Punjab in order to avail the benefit of reservation, would necessarily have to pass the qualifying examination from the institution situated in the State of Punjab. These conditions have nothing to do with the notification dated 6.6.1996 which has prescribed the categories to be taken into consideration for the grant of such residential status, because as observed above, even if such residential status is acquired and the petitioner admittedly having done so, she would still be disentitled because of the impediment of clause (vi). The writ petition is thus, held to be without any merit and is dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) March 16, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO