RUPALI VINAYAK CHOADHARY Vs. STATE GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petition No.2857 of 1989 and the Writ Petition No. 5 of 1990 in which notices before admission are issued can conveniently be disposed of by the judgment in W.P. No.1961 of 1989 with which they are heard. Rule is, therefore, issued in Writ Petition No.2857 of 1989 and Writ Petition No. 5 of 1990 and they are disposed of by the judgment in W.P. No. 1961 of 1989. The petitioner in W.P. No.2857 of 1989 is also an intervener in W.P. No. 1961 of 1989.

(2.) The facts in W.P. No. 1961 of 1989 are that the petitioner there inclaimed admission in the reserved category of the "Other Backward Classes" (for short "OBC") to the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Medical College, Nagpur affiliated to the Nagpur University for the academic session 1989-90. The petitioner did not get admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course in the above category of OBC. The grievance of the petitioner is that she did not get admission in the category of OBC in the respondent No.2 college because of the erroneous interpretation placed by the respondents upon Rule (b)(1)(ii) of the rules for admission to the Medical Colleges of the State Government framed under the Government resolution dated 13th June 1989 (for short, "the rules for admission"). It may be seen that according to the respondents, as provided in the aforesaid rule B(1)(ii), the 10 percent reservation prescribed for OBC in rule B(1) is inclusive of the candidates belonging to the O.B.C. who are selected on open merit. Feeling therefore aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition in this Court.

(3.) Apart from challenging the interpretation put by the respondents 1 and 2 upon rule B(i)(ii) of the rules for admission, the petitioner has also challenged its validity on the ground that it is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. Another contention raised in the instant writ petition is about the validity of Rule B(5)(ii) under which 30 percent of the total number of seats available after carving out the 15 percent seats reserved for being filled in on the basis of the criteria of merit through All India Entrance Examination are reserved for being filled in on the State-wide basis from amongst the candidates within the State of Maharashtra irrespective of the area of jurisdiction of the University in the State. When rule was issued in this writ petition, it was directed that one seat should be reserved by the respondents 1 and 2 until further orders with a view that if the petitioner succeeds and is otherwise eligible for admission, she should be able to get the said seat. Kumari Archana Suresh Gogate the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2857 of 1989 who is also an OBC has however intervened in the instant writ petition claiming that she being above the petitioner Kumari Rupali Vinayak Choudhary in the merit list has in comparison to the petitioner better claims for getting the said seat even from amongst the OBC. The State Government has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner.