IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.2019 of 2010 Md. Iqbal Shamsi son of Md. Shamsuddin Ansari, Near Madarsa Islamia, Naya Tola, Phulwarisharif, Patna …….Appellant Versus The State of Bihar & Ors …….Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shiw Kumar Prabhakar For the State : Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, G.A3 Mr.Mayhank Rukhaiyar, AC to GA 3 For Respondent No.5: Mr. S.M.Shabbir Alam, Advocate 3 4.2.2011 The instant letters patent appeal under clause 10 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been filed against the order dated 28.10.2010, passed in C.W.J.C.No.7013 of 2010, whereby the learned Single Judge held that the admission granted to the appellant in the course of Master of Dental Surgery, (Prosthetics) for the academic sessions 2010-13 is contrary to law and is not sustainable. Consequently a direction was issued to the authorities not to allow the appellant to attend the class any further. Before, we deal with the contentions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to notice the facts in some detail. Both the appellant and respondent no.5 appeared in the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 2010 for the 2 selection in the specialized course of M.D.S. (Prosthetics). The prospectus displayed four seats in the discipline. As per prospectus two seats were allotted to the Central Quota and two seats to the State quota. However, in the current session the selection was made for two seats only. One seat was allotted to Central quota whereas one seat was made available to resident of the State. Both the appellant and respondent no.5 along with others appeared in the examination. The respondent no.5 belonged to the General category, whereas the appellant belonged to the Extremely Backward Class category. It is not in dispute that respondent no.5 in this appeal secured over all highest marks in the examination. The appellant secured highest marks amongst the Extremely Backward Class Category. Both the appellant and respondent no.5 were called for counseling. The authorities reserved the sole seat allocated to State of Bihar for E.B.C. category for the current session 2010-13 and thus the appellant was selected for the same and admitted to the course on 29.4.2010. The respondent no.5 being aggrieved by the 3 admission of the appellant in the course of M.D.S. (Prosthetics) moved this court in writ jurisdiction. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that there cannot be any reservation in respect of single seat even for admission in PGMAT course. The learned Single Judge noticed that since only one seat was allotted in the M.D.S.Prosthetic in the quota of State of Bihar, the reservation to the single post is not permissible in law in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Vs Faculty Association & Ors, reported in A.I.R. 1998 SC 1767 wherein the Apex Court held that the reservation in respect of single post is bad in law. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the previous year the single seat too was reserved for general category and as such by way of rotation in the instant year the single seat has been given to E.B.C. rightly. Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, learned Government Advocate submits that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. 4 We have heard both learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State at length. It is well settled that no reservation could be permissible in respect of single seat in view of authoritative pronouncement of Apex Court referred to above on rotation basis. There cannot be even year wise reservation for single post in PGMAT or any educational course. In view of such settle proposition of law, we do not find any merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, it appears from the order dated 7.1.2011 issued by the Dean, Faculty of Medicine, Patna University, Patna that steps are being taken to recover the scholarship paid to the appellant for the period he continued in the course. There is no allegation that appellant made any misrepresentation or played fraud in being selected for admission in PGMAT-2010. The respondents themselves decided to allot the seat to E.B.C. category and thus granted admission to the appellant who topped the list of 5 KHAN E.B.C. category. The appellant has already suffered as he had to leave his course midway for no fault of his own. Thus the respondents are restrained from taking any fiscal measures or recovering the amount which has already been paid to the appellant by way of scholarship for pursuing the course. (S.K. Katriar,J) (S.P.Singh,J)