ASHOK KRISHNARAO DHOTE Vs. DEAN, MEDICAL COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As these two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution raise one common question of considerable importance in the matter of admissions to Government educational institutions, we propose' to dispose of both these petitions by common order.

(2.) SPECIAL Civil Application No. 813 of 1966 is at the instance of Shri Ashok Krishnarao Dhote. To his petition, the Dean, Medical College, Nagpur and the State of Maharashtra have been impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Besides them, are also impleaded respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, Shri S.W. Korpe, Shri M.V. Mahajan, Shri V.L. Bonde and Shri V.Y. Dhote respectively, who, according to the petitioner, have been admitted to the Medical College at Nagpur after the petitioner was included in a provisional list of students eligible to be admitted. Petitioner Dhote's case its that he is a student belonging to the backward class. He passed B. Sc. Part I Examination of the Nagpur University in June 1966 which is a qualifying1 Examination making him eligible for admission for the First M.B.B.S. Course in the Medical College at Nagpur. The Medical College, Nagpur, is a Government institution run by the State of Maharashtra. Petitioner made an application in the prescribed form to respondent No. 1, viz. the Dean, on June 30, 1966. Rules have been framed for regulating admissions to Medical Colleges run by the Government of Maharashtra. It will be necessary to refer to these rules in some detail later on. The total number of seats for which admission is to be made at Nagpur is 200. Some of these seats are reserved seats for students belonging to different categories. Amongst such reservations, 11 seats arc reserved for students belonging to other Backward Classes. In the application made by the petitioner he had disclosed that he belongs to Kunbi caste and is, therefore, a student belonging to other Backward Class. Though this statement as to the actual caste to which the petitioner belongs is not made in the petition, this statement was made at the Bar, and the fact is not now disputed on either side. The petitioner had also stated in column 5 (iii) of the application that he seeks admission as a student belonging to the other Backward Class against seats reserved for students of that class. Petitioner had earned 53.90% of corrected percentage of marks according to the rules framed for admission. Respondent No. 1 put on the Notice Board of the College on July 15, 1966 lists of students who were eligible to be admitted. A copy of the list containing names of students classified in the category of 'other Backward Classes' is filed by this petitioner at Annexure 'C'. The list is headed as 'Provisional Merit List of the candidates who have applied for admission to the Medical College, Nagpur, for the year 1966 -67 subject to Verification of all the original certificates attached to the application form'. Name of the petitioner appears in this list at serial No. 10.

(3.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 3 to 6 had each of them passed qualifying examinations for admission to the Medical College in the first year at Nagpur and each of them had also made applications in the prescribed forms for such admission to the First M.B.B.S. Course, as required by rules. But each of these respondents Nos. 3 to 6 had stated in their applications for admission specifically that they did not claim admission to the First M.B.B.S. Course in the category of seats reserved for students of other Backward Classes. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had produced original applications of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and stated that the community disclosed by each of these respondents Nos. 3 to 6 against column 5 (i) of the application was as follows: - Respondent No. Name Caste disclosed in column 5(i)3. S.W. Korpe Maratha Kunbi4. M.V. Mahajan Kunbi 5. V.L. Bonde Kunbi6. V.Y. Dhote Kunbi A statement to the contrary in para, 8 of the petition that some of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 had stated that they do not belong to other Backward Classes is obviously incorrect. They had made the necessary disclosure of the community to which they belong in the information required to be given against column No, 5 (i) in the application. But it is correct that they had not claimed benefit of being considered for admission to the seats reserved for ' other Backward Classes'. In further averments of para. 8 of the petition, the petitioner has given certain misapprehension as to the correct interpretation of the rules which might possibly have led respondents Nos. 3 to 6 not to indicate whether they desired admission to seats reserved for other Backward Classes.