GUJARAT UNIVERSITY Vs. SIDA NITINKUMAR LAXMANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Gujarat University and its Selection Committee, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the main Special Civil Application no. 3670 of 1990 (Reported in 1990 (2) GLR 808) are the appellants herein. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the original petitioners in the Special Civil Application No. 3670 of 1990 praying for issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring that the original petitioner No. 1 is entitled to opt for P. G. Medical admission in the general category pool of which he is at merit No. 21. The petitioner No. 1 therein has also prayed for getting the unit of his choice in P. G. Course and has also prayed for giving a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Special Civil Application to give admission to the petitioner No. 1 therein in the branch which may be available to the petitioner in order of his merit from general category pool in the interviews which were going to be held on the 10/05/1990. There is a further prayer in that Special Civil Application to the effect that the petitioner No. 2 therein is entitled to get admission in M. S. Orthopaedic reserved category for SEBC quota as per his merit number in SEBC category list. There is a further prayer to the effect that the action of the respondent authorities in that Special Civil Application, in denying the admission on the basis of general category merit number to the petitioner No. 1 and thereby denying the unit choice also to be petitioner No. 1 be declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the University received application for admission to post-graduate medical course. The University has prepared four lists. The list No. 1 includes names of eligible candidates for unreserved category of seats. This list includes also the names of students belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Economically Backward Class Communities. The list No. 2 includes the names of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes. List No. 3 includes the names of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. Nomadic Tribes and denotified tribes. List No. 4 includes the names of candidates belonging to Socially and Educationally Backward Class of Communities which in short, called SEBC. The names of first respondent herein appears at serial No. 21 in list No. 1 which is called common or unreserved category list. The first respondent's name also appears at the serial No. 3 in the reserved SEBC category list i.e. List No. 4. As far as second respondent herein is concerned his name appears at serial No. 73 in unreserved category List i.e. List 4. As per the notice issued by the university dated 12/04/1990, the date and time for interviewing the candidates have been given. According to the said notice, the candidates belonging to SC or ST or Socially and Educationally Backward Classes and who claim benefits of reservation were to be interviewed.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner No. 1 that he was forced to express his choice for reserved category seat and was required to give up the choice for unrserved category seat. But, according to the University, the first and second respondents herein, along with other candidates claiming benefits of reservation were required to express their choice either for reserved category seats or for unreserved category seats at the initial stage only accordingly to the procedure and policy adopted by the University. It is further stated, by the University that no coercion was exercised upon the first and second respondents herein. As per the notice, the first respondent herein appeared for the interview and exercised his choice for reserved category seat and was granted admission in subject of Orthopaedic, while the respondent No. 2 herein opted for unreserved category seat and, therefore, his interview was deferred.