^me-i^eJ C^/Sw^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIIASPUR (C.G.) W.P. No. 2527/2004 BETITIONER Deepak Kumar Soni aged 24 years S/o Shri Lekhram Soni R/0 Gondpara Bilaspur (Chhaty-sgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^\ <L 1. State of Chhattisgarh through ...^•'~ -'^ s;^ Secretary Health and Family ",,(::-;' Welfare Deptt. D.K. Bhawan, Raipur ^,..^^;.^:;^^:'"^:: Department Chhattisgarh D.K. .cv' <tu'c^ Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ' 3-Adhistha, Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Rajesh Agrawal C/0 Dean Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TWL^ FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUEi ANp OR I'RQHIBITION KSD OR ftNY OTHER WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION ON THE gAME NATUBE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ''y' OF AT W"t Petitjon No,2o27^f_20( Deepsk Kumar Soni Versu; itate of ChhattiS9arh & o'i.hsr; '<;. ^ at ^"tffV nr )CT"nRi ^ s sta^S? -§Sfr L.C. Bhadoo Judge / ^,10.2004 ^- ^ s^" •^ MI^COU^ effTOBlCATURE^TBIl^SPURf^H Wri* Petjtion N&2527 otlOG4 C>eepak;Kumar' Soni - Versus- State of ChhattiS9arh & others Present:.-:^ :•:,.•': : •). ; : . . , : • :;;';..: :; .,: : Mr'.'KanakTiwapiwithShriPrateekSharma, : I; . . ! d , ' ^Svocafes: • , , ,.'. •' . .:,:|: ;: ^porthe^.petil'tener. .'.:';::! ;:i • ; Mr..PpashGnt Aftishra, Additional Adyocf^e ^ener'a^ wjth^ AAr.^^ Acivocafe ©enerat; :, • !. ' . ; •, •; 'For •i'he.3tal-e/respond«ntS:tttt3.': None\'fopr'esp(;ndent,Mo.4. :', , ,' .: :1 • :, ' ii : i :.: :.' ' ! :• (Passed on_A2^0ctober,i;20Q4) LC.B1-IA&OQ; J. By thjs .,wt'rt- petitien fil^d uncier Apticie .226/227 'af| the Constitutiori of;-In^i!a the petitioner hds questipned :fhe, cocFectness and legatity of the letfcr (Annexure-P/1) .dated :9-8-2004 issued by^the'Qeon,; Meclical,Co.lle9e, Raipur, whereby The^ Dean has iiqtimateii the^petjtioner'that tie cGnnot be admitted in the firs-t- year iof AA.BiB.5.^ Cour'se/iagaihst the -disab1ed/hcindicapp^dclass.quota.! : i i: (2),; Brief focts leading to^fiiing df this vwit petjtion apa thcit 1-he petrfioner herein ^appeared 'in the Pre-AAedica!,^ E^mination, 2004 vide rol! No.47^311 fr^m ^,thS^^^ ;AAchwidyal<iya,teipur as.an O.B.£. category candidate. F. i4s gep! fha pelltioner'sipetitioni'tie secured:i23^ seaarod fir^ position in .Itie disab^ |h< pefitiensr;.;,was-mtimateid,:;:-to:'<ap|^r::.:fop.coLm^ A v^: '-e~" ;tis:,\ c0mmunication? ceiyed,tie:flppeared fbr d^ ixill^e, Reupur on .6^^0(M,;but.the: Deari,!AA^iwl Eollege, &^ give' actmjssion agajnst disabled/hcmdict^ped class orf fhe ground: ti'idt •t-hB seat; is for^unreserved.eafegopy'disabled'clasSiCcmdidate,^ -ftie|pe!titiener (^pearod.in fhg ^jcl' P.MT. exanihdtion M secured ,only 49.33% marks in fhe 10+2 qyali'fying ^xamination, 1 •t'herefore, he was not eligjble to .appedr in the said P.M.T. Examinatioti, as;';Areserved category ccmdkJdte for: which the; minimum ;per'ceiltage was::50%.,; '"Flne petil'iQner's case is that it is.true that ds per the;!?.M.T. ryles, dn unfeseryed ccrtegary candid<rte|who had secured 50%i^drks in^the^jqualifY^ was^ligible to appear in.th&P.^.T. Examination;:whsreas, S.CYS;T.:c^ candida-tBS'whft hfflci^secyred 40%. marks in ' e qualif^ing exarnination wepe eligifcle^lxi^appear jri the F>.M.T examihation: But;on<%ff<^ •ihe. sqid •P.M-T. examincttidn whether under: the •ynreser'weci, category: qtiota or .SC/ST.or Q.B.G. qyota;their meriT;is to be^fecy^ in the:;P.M.T., Examinatioi')1 irrespective of jth®trpepcan't'age 'jn the quolifying 'exan'ijnation. :Therefore,^he decision (Anhexure-P/1) 6f the &Bdn,; Medico! College, Rdipur':js contrar-y to the rulesand notlegal.As such, he;:prayed that 'cotnmynicafipn (Annexure-P/1) be quqshed: an8, by: writ. •of mandamus tlse resjjondsnts be direcfed, to granf ddmissien *6 tbe petitio^^ per :Anne>;ure-P/2.. : , : . ;; ::' :!','• :''.:: :. . : , (3) Re-ftjrh has been filed on behalf of^respondenl's 1 to| 3 in which.lt has' :been mentioned that •rtie petitioner secyf'ed 531 rnarks out ^of 900 |in the P.M^.iexamiricrfionandhisrcmkwas 230th. It'hasifurTherlb tiiat last date ifor syhmission of the appliccri-ion forn'i.for'appearing in'P.M.T. ;examinfffipn »ras24^-2©(M.andtill •thfft'.time there^^^ :th handicapped^ persons. ^Mowewr, vicle amendmen't' inserted on^ 5r Nvxf m •Rul&4(5), defimtioM we^'amended 3o:(» to; include'h :faddition to Sainik, etc., :iand that cfmendment •f'ui''tl'ier ^conferred bene'fir of 'horizoriNI;re%Pvation^tCt^the:handico;ppey'j»rsOnS|by^^ Rule t4(5) to..fhe extent of 3%.vide;'notjficdtj&rt^ ^ne>ai^^ •psssiiustp . ag: jauo!+!4.8datjj.j.o.;uoj4!.(:sd!a^4.;'a»®j.sj3tj4,'uoj+oyiuiDxa •j.'^vy'34;. ui ujs.otj .ouoiit.j^.sd tity. uB4t s>{uDai,ss®|p»jn^:®u'Lj6nat|+USAS 4»asssD|:»^psddD3!Puo).| .pMdassyun^ ^suisSDrubf^iufpB^ t^i6 uaaq ^^^^^^^^ 3lfl '&i-E19?i paAtOSajyn st^. .40^. j.uosui uoi+DAasssJ |a4.u®zuoL| ^o 4.!j.auac| ui»|9,io4. yaji4's3j^4-uss!p ^o6®4^'yg'O E^ spuadsp uoij.Bi.ittUDXa •^•vy<j iai(j. ui josdclo 04. Ai.itiqiSiia s^suoi+^sd 31)4. .10^ j,sty. Xaa/i Siijj^ •Xjo6a|.i»^aAiOSsJun.ioj. -(.uiostU si i|3!t|M^uo!+tiAj3saj icq.uozMOy ^ ;-, j.0 .j.ijsusq iAup 3)j&).'.o.j. p3M®||oaq 4.0uup3 jsuoi+i+ac! st|4. 'ftt0[\( -apojMpuix? '•< -3"g"Q ^ UB SO . Udl^UitUtlSO.-J^-^yJ 3t|+ .Ul .)Bsd<JO o+' a|qi6ij3 SEW> aij '3joj.aj8i|+: 'uoi+ByiuiDXg ^Dpuoasg .isij6i[-{;3fc|^l:U! <%Qg uoi|4. ssai.'si.^aitjM 's^Jioiu ^g-g^ .padnaaspoij jauoi4.j4.ad SI^L '•ssuoSs.jja? IpsAjssa.i atj4.. ^O Xuoi 04. p36uo|3tj SLJ' ~ fi Ajuo.iCTi+ouiupXa •^•\^-d al^ uj jx»ddo.p|noo uo!4jcw)Uip><3 A^Qpu^ 3L).). U!;S>jJRtU%Qg UOLj4.!SSa) pSUnSSS pCl) OL|M ai.OplpUlK) 8Lj^ (^ •.tjj.auaq ^otj+ uaAjB 'a^a^ OI^M A^oSaj^ •^•5^pLfl3 Ajo6a^D3^^?^ 04. 6u!6yo[aq; SSt>[31 :psc|dBpjpUB^ Oj. ^[Uo S+ij-susq. ^qi6un<- ja^uos p[no3 ,'{/g-ajn>csuuy ^PIA 'pasnppu+ui '.(.usjMpusfcUDi aiy. +01^.!. sai.BAj.suptysp A]joa|3 ijoii^A g/'g; -gjnxsuuy sri/y-a^riX8uu!yi^;p3Ruauo:sD uoi^^s^ JD^uozMOtj so li^^ uoi4.DAjaS8ti:i|i»!4.»iaA^iad.sp sassD|o puo saijo6af.Do 4.us.o.).j.jp j.o 3]qo|iBAD s+oas ;f;o s| qltt^ aij.t; ^o Xdo^ •sptiui SCM "3"g•o j.o suosjad 'psddDS'ipuotj joj. UOi^.oA.iass.i IKt.uozuoq. a+wodss pu '^o^3dsq4. '^p^.uot^ Sss| %gg-Q 04 ^urio^ IK ^.o !%g 4-D141. ucsi+DA^asarf^Dai+.oA %g ^|uo USAiB.spM swp,psdclo3ipu6ii''(/y -ajri>c3Uu^ -Aq pssripo.i^ui, stWtUpuawo siff. fo an.f.uiA ^q'.puo AdoBapM^ •yg-o joj.^ paA,,!3sa,i s.taM^ s+oas^n ; '3|npai)sis ai^i. jad sy 1 •uoitDAJassj ]B4.uoz!jo:4 ^;|jsm,isBjBO!4-^a^'J-oidn;>{;i»^S3A]6'os|DS|npst|35,.^ LjSnoji^ uoissiuipo joj; aiqojiDAD ,s+o®s "l"W'd as.'J. puo sssuiiuoy .i.yauiyjSAOc; [tM+ys^ ss |(;awi SB a4,onfa loipuj ||y J.o sisDq sL|4. uo; uoissiiupo .joj.^. pai+oip, s+pss y.o siia^sp ;^ [|^, ^o®104.04; g/y-3dns<guuy ^ad;sy •2/g-^nxauuy^^^^ > -&' -<% -i- :;"l (5) I have heard: AAi^ l&uiak Tiwari. leotrhed|CQudsel foF the pefitioner <^ Mr. ProshtOTt TOshra,,Additionoil Advoca-te ^nerol wi^ Deput^ AdvocafeSenera! forths Stgte/respoi'iyents t to 3. (6) Mr. Kanak Tiwari, ledrnsd counsel for" the petitioner subinit-tey that as. per the rules the reserved jcccfegory'.candiclates i.e. 5G/ST dna OBC reserved categbries caridiclates were eljgitle to appedr iri the P.M.T. examindtion if they had secured 40% :or ahovei. marks in -ttie quaiifyiri9 examJnation. Buf unreserved category candidates jwer®eligible -t-o appear ih the said examination if they had secured 50% or mere marks in •the qyalifYing ^ •examination. ;He further subrnitted ~<ih^ j^. ^cervfage. was fiwd as eligibility criteria for appearing in the P.M.T. exarnihation, 20Q4.jiBut,,,as.fdr | as mer'it for aclfiiission Ss concemed, that was •to be ctetermined,,ds •per the marks secured^ 1?y! each cdndidafe in the R.A^.'H. examiHatitin^ irr^specl'iva Qf ' tfte fact that he appeared as a reserved ^categor^ or:'unresepved cdtegory ; candidate. Iri other way, res&ryed category candidate who 'appeared in •itie, i P.M.T. examinafion hdving less than 50% nwrks :in the qualif^ing exflrninatiori, but had secured more marks thdn ynreserved category candidate in the P.AA.T. examindtipn was entitied for adinission^ainst unreseryed category seats. He ; further submitted :that unreserved (M^gory' seats, are' meant 1 f^ al! categories, therefore,. all categoraes carididoptesi were :entitM to seek ' cidrnission aigainst unreserved categnry seats if they hdd secur'ed^meri* ; position;f6r admission dgainst unreserved ccrtegory seats. In othe" wopds, if a | reserved categpry ccuididate had secured more rrinrks ^ in ;the P.AA.T. exarnindtion and his rank comes within the unreserved ca-tegory seats, thsn he was entitled folr adhiission against umese-rye.d category seats, thersfore,; he cannot be couri-ted against the reserved ^category^seats. As the petitionBr secured .more: rpdrks than respondent No.4 who.was | unreset'yed cdtegopy I cdndiddte, therefore the peti+ioner iwds: entitlec!; 'fbr' oidmission against handiccipped class: sedt! mednt for" unreseryed category 'as'againstTespondSnt Nb.4 whose'rank was lower thon -t-he petifioner in ^the:hcinc!iccipped:ciass. ;~t!! •"y S£ 'v 'S^^k"t ^^- ;(7) On the other' hand, Mr. Prashanti' A^tshra; Additional Aelvocate •Senerd! and Mr. ^grflwal:6eputy Adyocate Senerat.cu-gued thaf the qrgument advcinced by learned' counsel for 'thel petitioner^to, the certain exte is .corpect, but tte ^me.principle ccOTnot^be atlowed^fbr seg*s which', gi"e • reserved; in unreservgd' ccrtegory on •horizon'tttl basiS. 1 An 'O.B^. or SC/ST handi<^pedj^didate ccmnBtibeiallowed t6 seek.adinission agciinsi a handiGsapped seat of unreserved category reserved on her'izon-hsi! iMsis even if the reserved category candidate might:hdye secured mor^fflarks thanunreserveelli<indicappedcandidorfe. - (8); Having.heapd leamed counsel:fbr the-parties, I haveiperused the peleycmtvulssanclrecords. It.is true;that.at the'tinw^ofimitih^ •for PM^. 'exonwiafi^ provision: for the yisabled/handicc^pBd candidates. This provisioo was inserted vide Ahnexure- ,R/1 on.5-5-2004 byinsertingthe amendment in sub-Ruie (3) of| ruie-2, sub- ruie (7) of ryle 2< sub-rule 5 of ru!e4, .sub-rule (6) of.i-ule 4 and| sub-rule (7) o'frule-4. .By this amendi'nent 3% seats were.reSeryed for' disdbled conciidates and the schedule for various cdtegoriesiwas also alTienrfed. As'per' Annexures R/2.&:R/3 out'of 42..unreserved ^afs, Qne seOTWas re^rved!fbr^hc^ pei°son3 • and one : seat fpp ST : handiccpped : csM'ididcite. was reserved on horizontat basis. As the numfcier of sedfs for O.B.e. were 11 and for 5.C. were ; 12;. therefore; rio reservdtion ^for the handieapped^clciss candidate bf:+hese categories was made/<B 3% of their ccrfegory seqts w^ less than half seat. Jn this connectjon, if we read sub-rule (5) ^of ruie;4 which lciys.ciown.that'd . eategory seats which: affe, to ,be filled by the exarnlination 'wi!! haye : 3% --rgservort-ion fori Sanik cadre; 3% for.the Freedoml fighters dnd 30%' for the 'femalecadre.-Bytheamet>dtnent.dcri%d ,5-5^004 3% seats:^ each ^cal%gory\.wer% reseryedrforhQndi^ped^cidss.Sub-rute candidote shdll.be eng'itliec! to seek (icimissiQn IM! •omyone out sf reserved •categpry'i0r)class Ciigainst ®Fieout of reseryed.eiitegw^or' c\oss., I Tharefor'e, |as per.sub-rule (5)'sf- ^:4,13% hdnclico^ped'tccmElid :wero,entitled'for:flymiS^^iBut,.:tb&^» ^ u € ^dts mearitfor SC and GBC were 11 &12 and haff, therefor^^.no^separ'crte reSeryution'for;.handiiea^ :,<:dtegdpies^was''made^cOTd' one'seat was.r%serv®d^ .the unreserveti':<Mtegory and one iseo.t was ^reservesii in.fhe ;S.T. i categor'y. Ih my opinioh, the isoisis of'.reservation .in.nbt m^ :OBC categbries itseif vi^;violdtive of Articls-14 of^the.fCoristitution of India for the reason that eveh •tbough 3% r'eservafion iunder each^cfftegory was : prescribed for.handicapped persons; but th& handicc^ped' candidates' of SC • and OQC were denied admissions cgainst hamdicdppecl cadre: forng peasonab le eause .being cohtrary1 +o',the spirit pf ,rule;:4(5):o1';tl"terules.At!eastthe iTandicapped candida1%s of these categories ought ;t& have been considered for admission' a^iiiist unreserved, hanyicapped quo'ta' s«it,pf, cour'se, subject to their position in the merit iist of'handicapped eandjdates. i (9) In this cpnnection, if we look into the rule :5 which ;envisages the seleetipnr process and the second.Rart of 'SHb-rule, (Z^rpf rule ,5:ppesc that.the merit iist wiil be prepared on tlie^&csis of marks: ob^ Chemistry, Physics; Zoology and Botany. In the merit.list) roli numbep^name, cadre arid category dlong: wil+i the totai number secured by. tiie candjdates were fo''be mentibned, The merit:jlst was to'be prepared eategory-wise. ^Howeyer, .while prepar'ing the unreserved, categpFY: tist,; namea' of .ths j- unreser'ved category as well as reserved category eandid^s w^ Be / mentibned in 1+ie chronologicei prder on the basjs of marks pbtairied tey edch Cantliclate. .Therefore, second part of sub-rule (2) of ryle: 5 :of th®ruies clearly laiys down that even the Feserved category comdiidates were enti-frled to have their position in.the unreserved categof^ jist:pRowded theip' r^ks conie Vwithin unreserved :<xttsg6ry secrt^ on the basis:Qf'!marl<s ^curett the P^.T.-exdmi"irtion/ In other;words, unressrye9^«r^ be •prepared On the basis.lof marks^cured by^^didc^s irrespec^iye^^ their .artegc^.::Even the.reserved cafegcry.candiya1^s.:we^ in^the'unre^i^d^ccrtegory setrte provided^they ^ :.unresepved ccrtegory seafS :on the bqsisso'f • markS ^ ob'hainee!; fay^ .1-hem.! This ^ i ''-< further indicates that unreserved category sedts were o.vaslable to al! the .candidates on the basis of their merit irrespec+ive of the cate9ory they belonged and out of these unreseryed category seats.one seat was reserved on horizontal basis for the handicapped clsss candidate, therefore,applying the same formuia the petitioner herein even though appeared as an O.B.C. ciandidate, but-being a handicapped candidaje, was entitled for the handicapped seat reserved under the unreser-ved category ssats on the basis of his merit. (10) It is admitted position that the petitioner had secured more marks than respondent No.4 who appeared as an unreserved category candidate, therefore, I do not flnd any substance in the arguments of learned counsei for "espondents that the petitioner sppeared as cui O.B.C. candidate and jiaving less thcm:5Q% marks in the qualifying examination was not entitled for admission against unreserved cafegory handicapped ciass seat. This pdrt- 2 of sub-rule (2) ofTuie 5 is the <mswer to the argumsnts of learnedloounsei for ths respondents That irrespective of the fact that S£/ST|and OBC candidate was eiigible to appear in.the examinction on the basis df |40% or more marks secured by him in the qualifying examination, but whi!e^preparing the iTier'it iist, he was en+itied to hcve his rank in the merit iist on the basis of marks secursd in 1'he P.M.T. exatnination. The rule making authorit)-' has not made any distinction: on the basis of;marks obtained by each candidateiin -riie qualifying examinqtion. As mentioned above, when 3% reservdtjon of handicapped ccu'idida'tes of ccitegories was^to bg made as per sub-rule rute 4, then r candidates beionging to SC aid OBC for separate reservatioi'i was made in tl|!eir category cdnnot be denied if anyone had secured more: nvarks thdri a Jhandicapped' candiddte; o unressrved cafegQpy. Therefope, •thfe comltlunication; (Annexurs-P/l) respondent No.3 being contrd toftli^ P;M.T.rules eieserves to be flUjash^cl';cfici the decision of pespondent 'No.S^ giving jadmission, 16 respondent -4; as ;against the petitiQrjer ,in| spite of '|-He;fact that' thes ^etil-ioner':: secuF^ci|| mofe marks iri comparisonltp resppnc!sn^'l|'J|?;A;is ttlso itlegai. wHom no ission issued by tlj •~u -K; ''^J'.'- n... (11) In the re.sult, the petitioh -of the peTitioner is aiiowed. Eyen though the tast date for admission i.e. 30 September 2004 has passed, but. in view of t'he decision of the Mon^'bte, Apex Court In the matter'of HARISK VERMA ! ANb OTHERS Versus AJAY SRIVASTAVA <4Nb ANOTHSft reported in(2003) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES 69. para-21, the respondents are'dir'seted to consider the petitionSr for admission against the handicapped quota seat reserved in.unpeserved categisry seats. (12) Noor-dei" as to the costs. L.C. Bhadoo i'-i i- ,1; • t m.