CWP No. 12845 of 2008 ( 1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12845 of 2008 Date of Decision: 12-09-2008 Ramninder Singh Nagra ......Petitioner Versus Sh. Jagjit Puri, IAS, Secretary to Govt. of Punjab and others .....Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Arun Palli, Senior Advocate, with Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Jattana, Additional AG, Punjab, for respondent No. 1 and 5. Shri T.S. Dhindsa, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 to 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner, a minor son of a Central Government employee posted in Chandigarh in the office of Accountant General, Punjab, has invoked the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court so as to seek admission against the seats meant for the Punjab residents in the MBBS Course on the basis of PMET, 2008, conducted by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences. The petitioner has passed 10+2 examination from Chandigarh. He appeared in PMET, 2008 and obtained 599 marks out of 800 marks and his rank was 144. The total number of seats were 297. However, the petitioner was not admitted, when he appeared for counseling on 15.7.2008 for the reason that the residence certificate is CWP No. 12845 of 2008 ( 2) not in order as per Clause 4(d)(ii) of the Prospectus. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner is working in the office of Accountant General (Audit) Punjab having joined the said department on 8.6.1982. He has been issued residence certificate as per Clause 4(viii) of the Prospectus. Therefore, as a resident of Punjab, he is entitled to be considered for admission against the seats meant for the Punjab residents. The petitioner has produced another certificate to the effect that his father worked for 2 years 3 months in number of districts of Punjab, in connection with the affairs of the Punjab Government and, therefore, the petitioner is eligible for admission against the seats meant for the Punjab residents. On behalf of the University, the stand is that as per the eligibility criteria, a candidate should have passed 10+1; 10+2 or its equivalent examination, as a regular candidate from a recognized institution situated in the State of Punjab, except for the exemptions, wherever applicable. Sub clause (viii) is to the effect that the candidate should be bona-fide resident of Punjab. Relevant Clauses of the Prospectus read as under:- “4. Eligibility Criteria PMET-2008 A. For PMET 2008 (COMMON CRITERIA FOR ALL COURSES) (i) The candidate should have passed 10+1 and 10+2 or its equivalent examination and the qualifying examination as a regular candidate from a recognized institution/university. The 10+2 or equivalent examination will be as per details given below. (a) to (f) xx xx xx (ii) to (v) xx xx xx (vi) Should have passed his/her 10+1 and 10+2 CWP No. 12845 of 2008 ( 3) examination or other qualifying examination in place or 10+2, as listed in 4(A)(i)(a) to (f) above, as regular candidate from a recognized institution situated in the State of Punjab only except for the exemptions wherever applicable. The candidate would be required to submit a certificate to this effect from the Principal/Head of the institute last attended in the prescribed proforma. (vii) xx xx xx (viii) The candidate should be bona-fide resident of Punjab. The residence status of the Punjab State will be taken in terms of Punjab Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (PP II Branch), letter No. 1/3/95-3 PP- II/9619, dated 6th June, 1996, ID No. 1/2/96- 3PP-2/8976, dated 7th July, 1998 and ID No. letter No. 1/3/95-3PP-II/81, dated 1st January, 1999 and further instructions issued by the Department, if any, and the same shall be adhered in letter and spirits in PMET. B. xx xx xx C. xx xx xx D. Exemptions under para 4 A (i)(a) to (f) for 4 A (vi) and 4(C) (ii). (i) Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of all those regular Punjab Government employees, members of All India Services borne on Punjab Cadre, serving Judges and the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, employees of CWP No. 12845 of 2008 ( 4) Boards/Corporations/statutory bodies established by an Act of the State of Punjab, who have been holding posts outside Punjab on or before 1st January of the year of entrance test and their children/wards/ dependents were compelled to do 10+1 and/or 10+2 outside Punjab. (ii) Children/wards/dependents (whose parents are not alive) of all those regular Central Government employees, employees of Boards/Corporations / statutory bodies of the Central Government who have remained posted inside Punjab for at least 2 years out of the three years preceding the year of PMET 2008 but were posted outside Punjab for some time during these three years due to which their children/wards / dependents were compelled to do 10+1 and/or 10+2 or equivalent qualifying examination outside Punjab. However, those who remained posted in Punjab continuously for these three years shall not be entitled to be exempted as they are equally placed with other Punjab Government employees posted in Punjab. (iii) xx xx xx” In reply, on behalf of the State Government, it was pointed out that as per the certificate produced by the father of the petitioner, he is an employee of Government of India and is working as Assistant Audit Officer. There was no mention about the place of service in Punjab. He was only deputed on tour in the State of Punjab and claimed TA/DA from his parent department i.e. the Accountant General, Punjab & UT, Chandigarh, therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered for admission against the Punjab quota seats. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued CWP No. 12845 of 2008 ( 5) that once the petitioner is found to be a bona-fide resident of Punjab in terms of the Instructions of the Punjab Government, as per Clause 4(A) (viii) of the Prospectus, then the petitioner is entitled to be considered for admission as a resident of Punjab. It is contended that the petitioner is entitled to exemption as his case is at par with the Central Government employees, who remained posted in Punjab, as the father of the petitioner posted in Chandigarh, was connected with the affairs of Punjab alone. The question which requires examination is whether the petitioner having been granted bona-fide resident status of Punjab, is entitled to be considered for admission against the seat meant for Punjab residents, though he has not passed 10+1 and 10+2 or equivalent examinations from an institute located in the State of Punjab. As per circular dated 6.6.1996 appended with the Prospectus, an employee of the Government of India, posted in Chandigarh or in Punjab in connection with the affairs of the Punjab Government for a period of three years is entitled to residence certificate. But even if a candidate is resident of Punjab, still he has to pass the qualifying examination from an institution situated in Punjab, so as to avail the benefit of Punjab quota seats. As a matter of fact, the condition of passing qualifying examination from an institution situated in the State, came up for consideration before this Court in Meenal Sharma v. State of Haryana, 1995(2) PLR 209. While considering the similar condition introduced in the State of Haryana, it was found that the object of amendment was to stop the persons from getting admission by filing fake or bogus domicile certificate. Therefore, such eligibility criteria cannot be said to be discriminatory or having no rational to the object sought to be achieved. Thus, the condition of residence and passing the qualifying examination from an institution located in the State of Punjab, is required to be CWP No. 12845 of 2008 ( 6) fulfilled by the petitioner before he can be considered for admission in Punjab. Both the conditions i.e. condition Nos. 4(vi) and (viii) of eligibility conditions are required to be fulfilled by the petitioner. The second question is whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption, as has been granted to the children/wards/dependents of those regular Central Government employees, who have remained posted inside Punjab. The exemption contained in Clause 4(D)(ii) is specific that a Central Government employee, if remained posted inside Punjab during the last 3 years is entitled to exemption. The father of the petitioner was not posted in Punjab. The stand of the petitioner is that his father remained on tour in Punjab during the last 3 years and thus, he is entitled to be considered for admission against the Punjab seats. The petitioner has not produced the details of the duration of the tours of his father to Punjab. Though the petitioner has filed the replication, yet the stand of the respondent-State that the petitioner’s father has availed TA/DA for his tours to Punjab, has not been controverted. Meaning thereby that the place of posting of the petitioner's father was Chandigarh and he has availed the traveling allowance for going out of Chandigarh. It is not for this Court to introduce another clause of exemption or re-write the exemptions in any particular manner. In Nishant Puri v. State of H.P. and others, (1999)1 SCC 126, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the pari-materia provisions in respect of the admissions in the State of Himachal Pradesh and held that the purpose of clause relating to the eligibility appears to be that the bona-fide Himachali students should be given preference over other. In achieving the said object, care has been taken to protect those students whose parents were obliged to move out of Himachal Pradesh on account of exigencies of service, by reason of which the children also moved out of the State. In the aforesaid case, the mother of the student, who was an CWP No. 12845 of 2008 ( 7) employee of the State Government went on deputation on her own request on health ground to work as an employee of the Central Government. She was allowed to continue on deputation for nearly 10 years, though she was maintaining a lien with the State Government. It was held that the interpretation to treat the mother of the petitioner as a Central Government employee, would go against the spirit of eligibility clause provided in the Prospectus. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, we do not find that the petitioner can be considered to be eligible candidate as a resident of Punjab, for admission in the MBBS Course on the basis of PMET, 2008. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE September 12, 2008 ds