IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.2785 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.7.2011 Manmeet Kaur -----Petitioner Vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences & others -----Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadhwal, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Chetan Mittal, Addl.A.G., Punjab. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ 1. This petition seeks quashing of Clause (iv) of Para 27 of “Reservations in Government Colleges” laid down in the prospectus issued by the Baba Farid University. 2. Case of the petitioner is that she is a sportsperson having participated in the State Shooting Championship and National Shooting Championship in the year 2003 prior to her admission in the MBBS course. She passed 10+2 examination in the year 2004 and MBBS in the year 2009. In the year 2011, she C.W.P. No.2785 of 2011 applied for admission to the PG course. As per prospectus, apart from other reservations, 3 seats are reserved for sportspersons. The said provision is as under:- “27. Reservation in Government Colleges shall be as follows: (i) to (iii) xxxx xxxx xxxx (iv) Sports Persons (Credit will be given for the sports achievements made during MBBS/BDS academic courses only and shall be graded by the Director Sports, Punjab). (v) to (viii) xxxx xxxx xxxx” However, since in sports category, credit is available for sports achievements during MBBS/BDS course only and not for the sports activity prior to admission to the MBBS course, the petitioner was not considered eligible. According to the petitioner, classifying sports activity prior to admission in the MBBS course and during the course was arbitrary and thus, the petitioner should be considered eligible under the said reservation for sports persons on the basis of sports activity prior to admission to the MBBS course. 3. Initially, affidavit dated 12.5.2011 was filed by Senior Nodal Officer of the Government of Punjab stating that though persons who participated in sports during MBBS are to be given preference, sports persons who participated in sports even prior to joining the MBBS course are not ineligible. The petitioner 2 C.W.P. No.2785 of 2011 applied for withdrawal of the writ petition by accepting the said stand. A fresh affidavit dated 17.5.2011 was filed stating that the reservation was only for sports activity during MBBS course. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Question is whether provision permitting reservation only to those who do sports activity during MBBS is illegal and if so, is the petitioner entitled to reservation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once affidavit dated 12.5.2011 was filed, interpreting the reservation Clause to be applicable even to those who participated in sports prior to admission to the MBBS course, such stand could not be revised particularly when the petitioner had made an application for withdrawal of the writ petition, in view of the said stand. A vested right had accrued to the petitioner to be considered eligible in view of the stand in the said affidavit. It is further submitted that since the seat has been kept vacant and no person from sports quota has been admitted since 2005 in the said category, the petitioner should be given admission. Reference has also been made to time schedule laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar v. Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 65 providing that no admission could be given after 30th of June. Thus, according to the petitioner, since nobody else can be given admission, the petitioner is entitled to admission. 6. Learned counsel for the State and the University oppose the stand of the petitioner and submit that the reservation 3 C.W.P. No.2785 of 2011 policy clearly applies only to sports persons who participated in sports during MBBS/BDS course. The reservation being a matter of policy, there is no right de hors the provision for reservation. The said provision cannot be held to be arbitrary as while giving reservation to PG course the object is to recognize the sports achievements during the MBBS course which cannot be held to be irrelevant consideration. As regards seat being kept vacant, it is stated that seat has been kept on account of pendency of the writ petition. If the petitioner is not found eligible to the said seat, eligible candidate in General Category is available. As regards applicability of Mridul Dhar, the petitioner and any other candidate stand on same footing. 7. After due consideration of rival submissions, we do not find any merit in the petition. Mere fact that an affidavit on the issue of interpretation of a provision was filed, which has been withdrawn, cannot be held to have created a right in favour of the petitioner. Filing of application for withdrawal of writ petition did not create any right in favour of the petitioner. Admission on a question of law can always be withdrawn. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible under the provision, having no sports achievement during the MBBS course. The said provision cannot be held to be arbitrary, harsh or oppressive on the ground that sports activity prior to MBBS is not treated at par with such activity during MBBS. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. 4 C.W.P. No.2785 of 2011 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE July 18, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 5