SUNITA PANDEY Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Dr. (Smt.) Suneeta Pandey is in the midst of Second Year M.D. Ayurveda course, which is of three years, duration. She is pursuing the course in the subject of Basic Principle (Swastha Vritta and Yoga) which was the subject of her fifth choice in the order of preference. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the fact that she had qualified to get admission in the subject of her first choice, i.e., Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga), it has not been allotted to her and by invoking an unwanted and inapplicable policy of reservation, the said subject has been allotted to Dr Kaushalya Khakhalari-respondent No. 4. By means of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks that the order dated 31-3-1998 passed by the Director of Institute of Medical Sciences, whereby her representation has been rejected and the respondent-University has refused to allocate the subject as opted by her in the M.D. Ayurved course of the Institute for the session 1997-98 be quashed and the respondent. University be commanded to allot the subject of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) to the petitioner as opted by her at the time of her admission in the aforesaid course.

(2.) Shorn of all superfluities, the wood-cut profile of the case is that the Faculty of Ayurved, Institute of Medical Sciences, B.H.U., Varanasi, provides study in various courses for which admissions are to be made through entrance examination. The respondent-University issued Information Leaflet in July, 1997- 98. The petitioner who had passed her B.A.M.A. from State Ayurved College, Lucknow applied for admission through the said entrance examination. In the form prescribed for the purposes options for various course/subjects are to be given in order of preference. The first option of the petitioner was for admission in Prasuti Tantra course (Gynecology) while her second preference was Kaumarbhantya (Paediatrics) (Bal-Roga). The subject of Basic Principle (Swastha Vritta, and Yoga) was her fifth choice. There are 25 seats for Post Graduate admissions. Out of total seats, 15% are reserved for Scheduled Caste and 7-1/2% for Scheduled Tribe candidates. It was mentioned in the Information Leaflet that the seats reserved will be on internal roster basis. In paragraph 3.1 of the Information Leaflet, it has been provided that a candidate can apply for any subject, except Prasuti Tantra, which is admissible for female candidates only. The name of the petitioner in the merit list of the successful candidates finds place at S1. No. 13. There were 3 other female candidates who ranked high in position to the petitioner. They are Dr. Shipra Dhar (SI. No. 3), Dr. N.C.P. Laxmi, (S1. No. 5) and Dr. Arcnana Gupta (S1. No. 8). The three seats in the subject of Prasuti Tantra were to be manned by female candidates. Dr N.C.P. Laxmi has given her first option for Kaya Chikitsa and as such, she was not in the fray of candidates seeking admission to Prasuti Tantra. In this manner, Dr Shipra Dhar, Dr Archana Gupta and the present petitioner became entitled for being admitted to the subject of Prasuti Tantra in the light of the first preference for the subject indicated by them. All these three female doctors are of the general category. It is alleged that out of the three seats, which in ordinary course should have gone to the female candidates belonging to the general category, one seat has been given to a reserved candidate, namely, Dr Kaushalya Khakhalari-respondent No. 4, with the result the petitioner has been denied the benefit of admission in the subject of her first choice in preference. According to the petitioner, the policy of reservation has been wrongly applied as there are no transparent norms adopted by the respondent-University. The petitioner got her case represented in the form of a representation through the President of the Association followed by her own representation dated 19-8-1997. Since the University authorities did not move in the matter the petitioner was forced to file Civil Misc. Writ No. 5374 of 1998 which was finally decided by this Court on 17-2-1988 with the direction that the Director, Institute of Medical Sciences B.H.U., Varanasi shall decide the representation of the petitioner by a speaking order as expeditiously as possible, the petitioner made a fresh representation on 3-3-1998, a copy of which is Annexure 7 to the Writ Petition. Her representation has been rejected by the Director of Institute of Medical Sciences. B.H.U. by the impugned order dated 31-3-1998, Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition on the ground that according to the settled norms for internal rostering for the reservation of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Candidates, which have been uniformly applied, the petitioner has no claim on the said reservation in the department of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) as she belongs to the category of general candidates. It is this order which has been challenged in the present Writ Petition primarily on the ground that all the three seats in the Prasuti Tantra were liable to be given to the general category candidates and could not be the subject matter of reservation; that in the department of Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga), there are only 3 seats while the norms of reservation have been applied on the basis of five seats by clubbing three seats of Prasuti Tantra and two seats of Kaumarbhritya (Bal Roga); that in the preceding four years reservation has been granted to seven candidates, which is in excess of ouside limit of 22.5% that there is no definite policy of reservation and the petitioner has been discriminated by adopting the alleged norms of reservation in the discipline of Prasuti Tantra.

(3.) Two separate counter affidavits have been filed-one on behalf of the respondent-University and the other by Dr Kaushalya Khakhalari-respondent No. 4. It is maintained that the petitioner is not entitled to admission in Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga); that out of the three seats one seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates as per existing norms of reservation; petitioner being a candidate belonging to the general category, cannot claim preference against the seat reserved for SC/ST candidate. In substance the plea of the respondents is that the petitioner was not entitled to the admission to Prasuti Tantra (Stree Roga) subject. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavits. The original record of admission to M.D. course as well as distribution of the reserved seats was called for under the orders of this Court dated 16-9-1998. The respondent-University has produced the entire record in original before the Court.