KM SHARDA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in M.B.B.S. Course for the session 1991-92 in the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. It appears that a Combined Pre-Medical Test was held by Kumaon University, for admission to the M.B.B.S. course in the State Medical College of Uttar Pradesh 2% of seats in M.B.B.S. were reserved for dependents of ex-army personnel and the petitioner claimed admission under this quota. In the result declared on 21-2-92 the petitioner was selected for admission in M.B.B.S. Course in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad but subsequently in the revised list dated 30-3-1992 her name was not included against the selected candidates. Hence she has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Shri Shashi Nandan, teamed counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.R. Singh learned counsel for Kumaon University and am disposing of this petition finally. I have also perused the petition, counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. There were 15 seats in M.B.B.S. Course which were reserved for dependant for ex-army persons. Out of these 15 seats, 10 seats were reserved for male candidates and 5 seats for female candidate. The male candidate who got the lowest marks amongst the 10 male candidates admitted against the quota for dependants of ex-army personnel got 630 marks whereas the petitioner got 740 marks. The female candidates who got the lowest marks amongst the five female candidates admitted against the quota for dependent for ex-army personnel got 755 marks. It is therefore, urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that since only five seats out of 15 for dependents of ex-army personnel were meant for female candidates, and since the lowest candidate amongst these five had more marks then the petitioner, hence the petitioner could not be admitted. I am not agreeable to this contention. In the present case seats have been reserved exclusively for males which in my opinion is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and it amounts to discrimination in favour of male candidates. Under Article 15(3) of the Constitution there can be special benefit given to females, but there is no provision for giving special benefits to males. This is in view of the fact that our Constitution-makers realised that in our society at present women were in a disadvantageous position as compared to males. Hence there can be reservation for females but nor for males. Since the petitioner got 740 marks while the male candidate who got lowest marks against the quota reserved for dependents of ex-army personnel got only 630 marks, hence the petitioner is entitled to admission and refusal to admit her would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) The 10 seats reserved for males should have been treated as open seats for both males and females. However, in my opinion the open seats should have been filled in first, and if some girls qualified against these seats then the number of seats reserved for females should have been reduced to that extent, and those seats should also have been treated as open seats. This clarification is necessary because otherwise girls will enjoy double advantage. If the intention was to give representation to a particular group which it may otherwise not get then the intention is fulfilled by following the above rule. In future this general direction must be followed by all authorities, but in the present case I am not disturbing the selection already made (except for directing admission of the petitioner).