IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7013 of 2010 1. SAYED ASIF SABA S/O S. QUTUBUDDIN AHMAD C/O MD. SHAMSUDDIN ANSARI, NEAR MADARSA ISLAMIA, NAYATOLA, P.O. AND P.S. PHULWARISHARIF, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, PATNA BIHAR 2. THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, PATNA 3. BIHAR COMBINED ENTRANCE COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION BOARD, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, I.A.S. ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR PATNA AIRPORT, PATNA 4. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION, B.C.E.C.E.B., I.A.S. ASSOCIATION BUILDING, NEAR PATNA AIRPORT, PATNA 5. MD. IQBAL SHAMSI S/O MD. SHAMSUDDIN ANSARI NEAR MADARSA ISLAMIA, NAYA TOLA, PHULWARISHARIF, PATNA For the Petitioner: Mr. Chitranjan Singh, Adv. Mr. S.M. Shabbir Alam, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. Siya Ram Sahi, Adv. For the Dental Council of India: P.L. Jaiswal, C.G.C. ----------- 8/ 28/10/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board ((hereinafter referred to as the Board), private respondent No.5, and the Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the Council). The petitioner and respondent No.5 appeared at the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 2010 for selection in the specialized course of M.D.S. (Prosthetics). The prospectus displayed four seats in that discipline. Two seats were from the Central Quota and two of the State Quota. According to the reservation policy, of the State Quota one seat was reserved for the extremely backward class category and another seat for the general category. The - 2 - petitioner belonged to the General Category while respondent No.5 belonged to the extremely backward class category. Both of them succeeded in their respective category and were called for counseling held on 16.4.2010. On the date of counseling the petitioner was informed that the total of four seats were reduced to two only in the particular discipline. Consequently, one seat went to the Central Quota and another to the State Quota. The petitioner was informed that the sole seat in the State Quota in the particular discipline was reserved for the extremely backward class category. The petitioner filed the writ application on 20.4.2010 and that there could be no reservation of a single vacancy. In pursuance of the counseling the allotment letter is stated to have been given to respondent No.5, but admission was taken on 3.5.2010 nearly two weeks after filing of the writ petition. The question of law which arises on the aforesaid facts is whether there could be reservation of a single seat amounting to 100% reservation. This Court is convinced that no need for a detailed consideration of the matter on law in view of the fair stand taken on behalf of respondent No.5 that the issue stands concluded by the judgement of the Supreme Court in AIR 1998 S.C. 1767 that it is not permissible. No further discussion is therefore required that the admission of respondent No.5 was therefore contrary to - 3 - the law. A brief reference may only be made to paragraph-35 of the judgement which reads as follows:- “35. In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the constitutional framework. The decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent.” Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 is right in his submission that he is not at fault at any stage and there has been no misrepresentation by him. He appears to have become a victim of fate and circumstances for events beyond his control. But the primacy of the law must be maintained. Sympathy will not empower the Court to step beyond the jurisdiction of the law in exercise of powers under Article-226 of the Constitution of India. It has already been noticed that the petitioner approached this Court barely within days of the counseling and weeks before the private respondent took admission. The petitioner has ever been vigilant for protection of his rights and the order-sheet reflects that he is not to be blamed in any manner for the delay in the disposal of the proceedings. He has been prevented from taking admission - 4 - and/or attending classes again by a quirk of fate and circumstances for events beyond his control. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the case satisfies the Court that he is entitled to be admitted to the course in the aforesaid discipline in Patna Dental College, but he is required to complete the course in accordance with law and shall be bound by all stipulations and conditions for the completion of course and appearing at the final examination. That brings to the fore the issue of the nature of relief that may be granted to respondent No.5. The discipline being a specialized discipline involving issues of academics, the Court does not consider itself competent to decide whether the plea of respondent No.5 that one more admission shall do harm to none, but save the career of the respondent, that is a matter to be decided appropriately by the academician and the expert body of the Dental Council of India. This Court therefore holds that the admission granted to respondent No.5 was contrary to the law and is not sustainable. He cannot be permitted to continue to attend classes any more. Needless to state that if respondent No.5 promptly represents to the Dental Council of India, this Court expects the same to be considered in accordance with law with utmost expeditiousness keeping in mind that each date that the respondent No.5 is kept away - 5 - from the class room, it operates to his prejudice so that, if permissible, the respondent No.5 is facilitated in pursuing and completing the course also. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)