CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 27 , 2010 Manish Kumar Singla .....Petitioner VERSUS Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Three petitioners in these two Civil Writ Petition Nos.3032 of 2010 (Manish Kumar Singla Vs. Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Services, Rohtak and others) and 16582 of 2009 (Arushi Puri and another Vs. Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Services, Rohtak and others), which are being disposed of through this common order, have approached this Court seeking direction for the respondents to give them admission in Pt. B.D.Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak (for short “Rohtak CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: College”). The grounds and the basis for relief in both the writ petitions are common and identical. The facts are noticed from CWP No.3032 of 2010. All the three petitioners are presently students of MBBS at Maharaja Agarsain Institute of Medical Research & Education, Agroha (Hisar), (here-in-after referred to “Agroha College”) but claim that as per their merit, they were required to be admitted at Rohtak College. Entrance examination (Haryana PMT) 2009 was conducted for admission to MBBS/BDS/BAMS Courses in the Institution affiliated to respondent-University. Petitioner Manish Kumar Singla got 127th rank in the PMT examination, whereas petitioners Arushi Puri and Akash obtained 124 and 126 rank respectively. On the basis of counselling, the petitioners got admission at Agroha College on 9.7.2007. The classes commenced. The petitioners joined the classes on 21.8.2009. A writ petition was filed before this Court alleging that question paper was leaked at some of the PMT examination centres and this court thereafter ordered fresh PMT examination at two examination centres, which was held on 26.8.2009. On the basis of the fresh test at two centres, the result and ranking had undergone a change and petitioner Manish improved his rank to 124, whereas other two petitioners now ranked 121 and 123 respectively. The result of the counselling also was revised. The ten candidates from the general category, who had earlier been admitted at Agroha College, were shifted to Rohtak College. The petitioners, as per their merits, were continued at Agroha College. They have now made a CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: claim for shifting their admission to Rohtak College in the background that some seats in the reserved category of physically handicapped were not filled and were required to be reverted to admission for general category candidates and so were required to be offered to the petitioners instead of giving it to the candidates belonging to reserved category of Ex-servicemen. It is averred that 20% seats were reserved for Scheduled Caste (50% each for A & B Block) 16% for Backward Class (Block A) and 11% for Backward Class (Block-B). 3% seats were reserved for physically handicapped category. This is in terms of the instructions incorporated in the prospectus. The instructions also make a provision that in the event of physical handicapped quota remaining un-utilised, then these may be offered to Ex-servicemen and their wards (1%) and the dependents of Freedom Fighter (1%). In total, 150 seats were available for admission to MBBS Course at Rohtak. Out of this 15% (22 seats) were reserved for All India quota. One seat was kept for nominee of the Government of India and two seats were reserved for NRI students, leaving 125 seats to be filled on the basis of PMT examination held by the University. 61 candidates from the general category were admitted in the College at Rohtak, whereas 64 candidates are from the reserved category. The plea is that if the provisions of the prospectus had been followed in letter and sprit, then 2-3 additional seats would have become available for the candidates from general category and, thus, the petitioners would have got admission in the College at Rohtak instead of College at Agroha. The averment in the petition about the number of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: students admitted in various categories as given in the petition is not disputed. It shows that 25 students were admitted in Scheduled Caste category, 20 students in Backward Class (Block-A) category, 14 students in Backward Class (Block-B) category. No candidate was admitted in the physically handicapped category and 5 seats were given to Ex-servicemen and their wards by 3% horizontal reservation. The grievance of the petitioners is that 3% seats reserved for physically handicapped category which had remained unutilised were given to candidates belonging to Ex-servicemen category, which is in violation of the provisions of the prospectus. The counsel would contend that these seats were required to be offered to general category candidates as per the provisions of Para 10 contained in Chapter-V of the Prospectus, which regulates reservation and distribution of seats. Para 10 reads as under:- “Competition for the reserved seats will be among the candidate belonging to the categories for which the seats have been reserved. Reserved seats remaining vacant on account of non-availability of eligible candidate would be placed under `Open Merit' seats.” The submission is that the seats reserved for physically handicapped category should have reverted to general category and, thus, the petitioners, who were next in merit, would have got admission at Rohtak College instead of Agroha College. This claim of the petitioners is disputed by the University as well as some of the private respondents, who have been admitted at Rohtak College. The assertion about holding of the examination and re-examination at two centres is admitted. It is also not disputed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: that the total number of seats available at Rohtak College were 125 after taking out the All India quota seats etc. It is then pointed out that 50% of total 125 available seats become 62.5 and, thus, 62 seats were allotted to candidates of general category and remaining 63 seats were for reserved category. Reference is made to instructions issued by the Government on 20.10.2005, which are part of the prospectus and annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3, through which a provision for reservation of seats for various reserved categories has been made. As per this letter, 3% seats are reserved for physically handicapped candidates. It is further provided that “in the event of quota reserved for physically handicapped remained unutilised due to non-availability of suitable candidates of handicapped category, it may be offered to Ex-servicemen and their wards (1%) and the dependents of Freedom Fighters (1%). Not only that, Annexure P-3 further provides as under:- “On further consideration of the matter, it has been decided to allow 3% horizontal reservation to Ex- Servicemen/Freedom Fighters and their dependent by providing reservation within reservation of 1% of general Category, 1% out of Scheduled Castes and 1% from Backward Classes category for admission to various educational institutions of the Govt. and Govt. Aided/Self Financing Colleges/institutes located in Haryana. As far block allocation in Block A & Block B of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes categories is concerned, year-wise rotational system will be adopted. For example, if Block A of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: are given seats in the year academic year 2006, the next block i.e. Block B of categories of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes will be given seats in the next academic year i.e. 2007 and so on.” In the reply, it is also clarified that Ex-servicemen and Freedom Fighters are the alternative categories of physically handicapped category as can be made out from Annexure P-3. It is accordingly stated that in the event of quota reserved for physically handicapped candidates remaining unutilised due to non-availability of suitable candidates of handicapped category, 1% each out of this was to be offered to Ex-servicemen and dependents of Freedom Fighters. The submission is that instructions and prospectus are silent qua remaining 1%. It is here that the parties enter into dispute. The counsel for the petitioners would contend that this 1% should revert to general category candidates as per Para 10 of Annexure P- 4, reproduced above. On the other hand, the counsel for the University would say that making non-provision for 1% would not mean that these seats were to be offered to general category candidates. Contention is that these seats would fairly have to be distributed amongst alternative reserved categories, like ESM and Freedom Fighter and these would revert to open merit only if these had remained unfilled. Plea is that no candidate in the Freedom Fighter category was available and so decision was taken to offer the unutilised seats of physically handicapped to the ESM category which was alternative category to physically handicapped category. Accordingly, these seats were given to ESM candidates as per CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 7 }: their merits. The counsel for the University pleads that it would be as per the instructions contained in the prospectus. The counsel for the petitioners would strenuously oppose this and maintains that the seats meant for physically handicapped category should have gone to general category or at least 1% of such seats about which instructions, Annexure P-3 are silent, should have gone to general category. The counsel for the University, on the other hand, has justified the stand with equal vehemence that the seats could have gone to general category only if alternative to physically handicapped category were not available and the action of University in offering these seats to ESM category candidates, which is an alternative to physically handicapped category would be just, equitable, legal and fair. The issue basically is to determine how the different provisions of the prospectus would operate. There was no reservation made for ESM category or for Freedom Fighter category. The reservation apart from SC and BC categories was made for physically handicapped category and this was to the extent of 3% of the seats. If these seats remain un-utilised, then these could be offered to Ex-servicemen and their wards and dependents of freedom fighters (1% each). There is also a provision made for 3% horizontal reservation for Ex-servicemen, Freedom Fighter and their wards by providing reservation within reservation as has been noted above. Four seats were reserved for physically handicapped category and these four seats were available to be offered to ESM category and freedom fighter category as per the instructions (Annexure P-3) as these had remained unfilled. Chapter-V of the prospectus, annexed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 8 }: as P-4, would regulate reservation and distribution of seats. This has to be read in conjunction with the policy instructions dated 20.10.2005 (Annexure P-3). Para 10 of Chapter-V, which is the main plank of attack by the counsel for the petitioners, lays down that the competition of the reserved seats will be among the candidates belonging to the categories for which the seats have been reserved. Reserved seats remaining vacant, as per this para, are to be placed under open merit. If this provision of the prospectus is to operate in isolation, then all the four seats in the physically handicapped category should have gone to open merit. If it is allowed to operate in this manner, then the other part of the prospectus annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3 would become redundant. Accordingly, both the provisions of the prospectus are to be read together and that too harmoniously to achieve the purpose laid down in the prospectus and the policy instructions. The decision, as per the policy, is to offer seats reserved for physically handicapped category remaining unfilled to Ex-servicemen and dependents of Freedom Fighters. That would be a first option which have to be exercised as per the prospectus as well as in terms of policy of the Government. The harmonious reading of these provisions would mean that the seats reserved for physically handicapped category on remaining unfilled would first be offered to category of ESM and dependents of Freedom Fighters and only if these remain unfilled thereafter that these would revert to open merit. If these provisions are read or interpreted in any other manner, then it will make the instruction issued by the Government, which is part of prospectus, meaningless. That is not what is provided in the prospectus and that also is the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 9 }: policy of the Government. Apparently, there may be some substance in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner so far as 1% seats out of 3% reserved for physically handicapped category about which the instructions, Annexure P-3, are silent that these were to be reverted to open merit. When Annexures P-3 and P-4 are read together, then it can be seen that first aim is to offer seats reserved for physically handicapped category to other reserved categories. If the intention had been to provide these seats to open merit, then it could have easily been provided in either the prospectus or in the instructions. Reading this provision harmoniously would lead to fair interpretation that these seats would revert to open merit only if ESM category is also exhausted. The action of the University in offering these unfilled seats to the alternative category of Ex-servicemen, thus, may not be unjustified, discriminatory or arbitrary. I am persuaded to take this view as a question of change of a College alone is at stake and it is not that some candidates have been ousted for admission from the course. It is also to be kept in view that reservation has been made for various categories as per the policy of the Government and converting the reserved seats for another reserved category would not lead to changing the percentage of reservation meaning thereby that no candidate in the general category has been deprived of his right of admission. The whole stress of the counsel for the petitioners to seek change of College was that the College at Rohtak is much more prestigious than the one at Agroha where they have been admitted. In fact, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3032 OF 2010 :{ 10 }: except for mere assertion baldly made during the course of arguments, there is nothing on record to support or substantiate this aspect. The submissions made by the counsel for the private respondents, who may have to be ousted from the College can also not be ignored. It is pointed out that the private respondents had got admission in the Dental Colleges etc., which they left to take admission in the College at Rohtak and if their admission is now interfered, they will be left high and dry and without a place to go as they may not be eligible for admission in Agroha College where there may not be any seat available in the reserved category to which they belong. The general category seats, which have been given to the petitioners against which they were admitted, thus, will remain unfilled especially at this stage of the study where the candidates have almost completed one year of their course at respective Colleges. No case for interference, thus, is made out and the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. July 27, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE