D RAJASREE Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition raises an important question as to whether a scheduled caste candidate, who has the origin of Union Territory of Puducherry, would be disentitled to seek for admission to First Year M.B.B.S. Degree course in any one of the colleges run within the said Union Territory solely on the ground that her parents did not continuously reside in the Union Territory of Puducherry for not less than five years immediately preceding the date of application?

(2.) THE petitioner, by name D. Rajasree, (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the candidate') is represented by her father. THE candidate belongs to Adi Dravida community notified under the Presidential Order. Her father is a native of Kirumampakkampet, Puducherry. While he was working in the Public Works Department, Puducherry, he got selected as an Assistant Advisor (PHE) in the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. By virtue of such selection, he had moved to New Delhi with the family to take up the new assignment. THErefore, admittedly, he and his family members did not reside in the Union Territory of Puducherry for a period of five years immediately preceding the date of application. THE candidate was born in the Union Territory of Puducherry and hence, her origin is Puducherry. She studied upto VII standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Puducherry and thereafter, she was taken to New Delhi and she completed her Plus 2 course from Kendriya Vidyalaya, New Delhi. She had secured 87.4% of marks in the aggregate. On the ground that she was eligible to apply for a seat in M.B.B.S. Degree course reserved for scheduled caste candidates in the UT of Puducherry, she applied for such admission for the academic year 2009-2010. Though, on the basis of her cut-off mark she was entitled to get a seat, the same was denied on the ground that clause 2.6(d) of the Brochure for admission to professional courses in Puducherry for the year 2009-2010 stipulates a condition that children of natives of UT of Puducherry should have continuously resided for not less than five years immediately preceding the date of application. Hence, the petitioner represented by her father has approached this Court questioning the said clause 2.6 (d) of the Brochure and for a consequential direction to give admission for her in the M.B.B.S. Degree course for the academic year 2009-2010.

(3.) IN meeting the above submissions, Mrs. N. Mala, learned Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry), has firstly submitted that Clause 2.6 mandates that in order to apply for admission, the candidate must belong to UT of Puducherry only if he/she satisfies any one of the domicile criteria enumerated in the said clause. One such criteria is sub-clause (d) which requires a nativity certificate in the prescribed format as per Annexure-V. By that sub-clause as well as Annexure-V, a candidate seeking admission under Puducherry residents quota seats must furnish a Permanent INtegrated Certificate as per G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 24.02.2008. As the candidate in question did not produce such a certificate, she is not eligible for admission. The learned Additional Government Pleader would also submit that Clause 5.1 of the Brochure relates to only reservation and special allocation of seats and it has nothing to do with the general instructions in Clause 2.6 of the Brochure, as the said clause is applicable to all candidates irrespective of their castes including the scheduled caste candidates. She would further submit that as the Government is empowered to regulate admissions, the restriction placed on the candidates of Puducherry cannot be considered to be an infringement of the Presidential Order. The Brochure issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No,53, dated 27.05.2009 is binding on all the candidates and insofar as Clause 2.6(d) is concerned, it is only a regulatory measure to make some of the candidates eligible to apply for a seat and such a regulatory measure cannot be found fault with.