IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.923 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision : October 31, 2011. Shriya Dhar .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. Mr.B.B.S.Sobti, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr.Jasmandeep, Advocate, for Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.4. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is a migrant from the State of Jammu & Kashmir and she got admission in MBBS Course in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana through the Punjab Medical Entrance Test held in the year 2007, against a seat reserved for the candidates who are migrants from the State of Jammu & Kashmir. Since the petitioner was being charged fee at par with the students admitted against the 'Management quota' which is much higher than the fee structure prescribed by the State Government for the candidates admitted against the quota for the migrants from the State of Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioner has approached this Court. CWP No.923 of 2009(O&M) [2] The fact that the petitioner was actually admitted against a seat meant for the Jammu & Kashmir migrants but inadvertently has been shown to have been admitted against the 'Management quota' seat, was brought to the notice of this Court on 25.5.2011 when the State Government was directed to intervene and take an appropriate decision. Pursuant thereto, the State Government has passed a self-speaking order dated 30.9.2011 acknowledging the fact that the petitioner was admitted against a seat meant for the migrants of Jammu & Kashmir and that she is liable to pay the fee as prescribed for the 'Government quota seats' only and not the one prescribed for the 'Management quota seats'. The operative part of the Government order dated 30.9.2011 reads as follows:- “......5. Whereas in view of the above developments, the case of Ms.Shriya Dhar admitted in the year 2007 in the reserve category for 'Migrants from Jammu and Kashmir due to terrorist violence' has been considered on following facts subsequent to the letter No.5/66/07-3HB III/9613 dated 22.12.2008 issued by the Government in pursuance of the communication received from the office of Advocate General, Punjab, indicated above. (i) The Notification applicable since 2004 and onwards, indicated the inclusion of Reservation for J&K migration seats under government quota in Private colleges. As a matter of rule, all reservations in private colleges is under government quota. Thus, it is clear that the private colleges were fully aware of clause. (ii) The clause 5B(vi) of the notification in the prospectus is amply clear to indicate such reservations. Thus, even if there was a CWP No.923 of 2009(O&M) [3] typographically error, which DMCH, Ludhiana has also admitted in their letter No.DMCH/P/2008/509 dated 2.8.2008 they should have abided by the above said clause and not made admissions in the management category. The reasons for not seeking rectification or clarification at that time are best known to the concerned college and the State government would refrain from making any presumptions for this omission on the part of the concerned college. (iii) In fact any discrepancy after the issuance of notification dated 3rd July, 2007 should have had been brought to the notice of the government both by the Baba Farid University and the concerned college. I am also constrained to point out that in case of any perceived discrepancy both the private colleges and the university do approach the government during admission process for clarification/rectification, if necessary and all such communications are responded promptly for removing any ambiguity. In this case, DMC had preferred to remain silent even though as per their own admission the table had a typographical error. (iv) The admission of the candidate is under the J&K migrant category which falls under the government quota and no other candidate was admitted in that college under that category in that year. (v) It is also highlighted that further admissions in the same institute has been given in this category under government quota. Thus, there is no reason to charge management quota fee from this student admitted under the same category on the basis of typographically error. CWP No.923 of 2009(O&M) [4] (vi) A student belonging to a particular category clearly notified in the prospectus cannot be put to disadvantage because of typographical error which could have been corrected at that time. 6. In view of the above facts, it is clarified that the seat under 'Migrants from J&K due to terrorist violence' as per clause 5B(vi) is part of government quota and only Govt. quota fee is to be charged from the candidate Ms.Shriya Dhar, admitted under that category during the year 2007. Thus, college is hereby directed to treat this admission under Government Quota and refund the excess fee, if any, charged from the student as per the notification No.5/35/07-3HB3/4905 dated 3 August, 2007...........” In view of the above mentioned Government decision, the writ petition in a way has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of with a clarificatory direction that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the fee strictly in accordance with the government order dated 30.9.2011 and the excess amount, if any charged from her, be refunded within a period of two weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Similarly, the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner shall also be released. This order shall, however, cause no prejudice to the right of respondent Nos.2 & 3 to challenge the Government order dated 30.9.2011 before an appropriate forum. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 31, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE