SUMI JOHNSON Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an applicant for Homoeo Medical degree course, BHMS. Students are admitted based on entrance test, both against free seats and also payment seats. Seats are also reserved for various categories including ex-servicemen to which the petitioner belongs. Admission to these reserved seats are also based on such entrance test. Petitioner was admitted against a payment seat for which one has to deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh -and shall pay a fee at exorbitant high rate of Rs. 27,500/- per annum as against Rs. 670/- per annum for free seats. THE petitioner is eligible for being considered for the seat reserved for ex-servicemen. Petitioner has secured rank No. 2912 in the rank list of successful candidates. She has specifically averred in the Original Petition that she was the first eligible candidate for selection against the quota reserved for ex-servicemen. It is also her specific case that a candidate, 4th respondent, having a lower rank then her, as No. 3167 is admitted against ex-servicemen quota in the free seat. She submits that she is thus discriminated when she being the No. 1 candidate among the ex-servicemen with rank No. 1912 is admitted to payment seat for which a deposit is essential and fees is at exorbitant rate; whereas the 4th respondent having rank No. 3792 is given a free seat where she need pay only rs. 670/-as annual fees. This is discriminatory.

(2.) THE fact that the petitioner is having a high rank' than the 4th respondent, is not disputed. That the 4th respondent is admitted to free seat, is also not disputed. That this admission is against the ex-servicemen quota, is also not a disputed fact. That the petitioner is also eligible for being considered against the ex-servicemen quota, is also not disputed. In such circumstances, the petitioner having a higher rank than the 4th respondent is entitled to be considered against ex-servicemen quota in preference to 4th respondent in free seats. THE provision in the Prospectus which leads to a situation that a person with higher rank will be admitted to payment seats and a similar person with lower rank will be admitted to free seats, is totally discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. In such circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for a direction as sought for by her for admission the seat reserved for ex-servicemen as against the 4th respondent. O. P. is allowed as above. . .