«-" SINGLEBENCH u^A' In the Honble Hieh Court ofChhattishearh at Bilaspur f.C. G.) W.P.No.i'76132005 Petitioner ............^;. Ku Deepmala Dewangon aged 21 years daughter of Shri A.L. Dewangon, student of 3d year of Pashu Chikitsa & Pashupalan Mahavidyalaya, Anjora, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Versus Respondent... ... (' The State Govemment of Chhattishgarh Through the Secretary, Agriculture Department, D.K.S.Bhavan,Raipur. 2. Indira Gandhi, Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur. rough the Registrar .-nr s- ,0$ 3. CollegeofVeterinaryservicesand Animal Husbandary, ll 'v ..n^SJOTa'Thrc>ugh the Principal Tahsil and District Durg .^^5TU ' Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution oflndia That the petitioner respectfully furnishes the particulars ofthe writ petition as ^-Q^. :2 HSGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE CHKATTISGARH BiLASPUR S.B. Hon'bte Shri Sstlsh K. AgRihotri, J. Writ Petition HG. 1769 of 2005 Petitionsr Ku. Deepmala Dewangan Versus Resoondente The State Governmsnt ofChhaStisgarh and others 3. Present: F,<r. N.K. Chatarjee, leamed counseS for the petltioner. Ms. Suniia Jain, Fanel iawyer for the respondent/State. ORDER (Passed on 21"- day of February, 2007) By' this petition, the petitioner prays for a direction "to trsst the petitioner as student entitlsd for fres seat ar.d refund of {he amount recovered with n<U ink interest and damaaes for rnenta! torture to a femaie student and heayy S'rti cost deser/es to be ordered in the facte and circumstances of the case." Ths indisputabie facte, in nutshei!. are that the petitioner v/as admltted in B.V.Sc. and A.H. Course in the first year on payment seat. Thereafter, the petitioner made an app!ication for conversion of her payment seat to free ssat. By the order dated 30.9.03 (P/1), app!ication of the peSitioner was rejected on the ground ttiat payment seat cannot be converted to free sheet as the same was not permissibie under Saw. The petitioner aiteges discrirnination on tte ground that payment seat of one Shri Hemkumar Beiichandan was convertad to free seat. l.eams^counsel appearing for the petiSicner submits that there ars two free seate stil! available, v/hich is reser»edfor Scheduled C9.ste fl:sma!e) Candidate and one of ths same couid be given to the pstitioner. It is further contended that one ssat reseroed for Schedulsd Caste (Femaie) (S Candidate, which has been given to Scheduted Caste candidate nameiy Shri Suman Kumar. 4. The peti'tioner has reiied on ciause 4.12 of the Chhattisgarh P.M.T. Examlnation-2{X)2 Admissten Rules in support of his contention that seate are reserved for Schedulsd Caste (Female) Candidate. On perusal of the pieadings appended to the petition, the contention of the petitioner on the face of it is incorrect as clause 4.12 makes the provision for reseroation of Scheduisd Casts, Scheduied Tribe and Othsr Backward Class comrnunities and in case of seate for unreserved candidates, Shere is 30% l/^?+Ij».i?tl fjAip-.jftFi/.n+i.At^ ^np la^^kWi^-At^ (n^^t^t/^ii-I.^+.^i^ ^1<^[ ), Vdu^rcii is?&fc?iVcl»v*j iUI WUIifctii fciaii^iiucilte^. v/i< 4.12 of the PJ31't!j Chhattisgarh P.M.T. Examination-2002 Admisslon Rules reads as under:- " 'WUtl Tft ^fe<55t V&Sl aNT ^ 'ni^ Woft ^S? ^' Vv^V st^ a<a(fc( .a^qj^a urri^, ar^^ti ui^utila. SFV ftgsr qif s^ ^•n'tSiti -^sft ^' t(Ri?it3lt' <^ fSri 30 >iRi3i(i S^x aiRapir shir" The petitioner is not in a position to point out any other cireuiar, which prescribes for reservation of frwo fres seats in favour of the Scheduled Caste (Femaie) Candidates. The reserved seat has been altotted to a male candidate. The petitioner has not further pointed any provisions or any other materia! facts so as So support his avermente. Thus, Shis petition is frivotous and lacks materiai facts. The writ petition is accordingiy dismissed, No orcter as to costs. _ ^'^otri Satisb^. 3ud&e