VIJAY KRISHNARAO KEDARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition is to obtain Petitioner's appointment as a Registrar in Obstetrics and Gynaecology after quashing that made in favour of Respondent 3.

(2.) GRANT Medical College and the J. J. Group of Hospitals are State run institution. Rules have been framed to regulate the appointment of registrars attached to Government Medical College in the State. These rules provide for reservation in favour of the weaker sections categorised into 4 sections viz. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Vimukta Jati and nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes. The balance goes to the open category. The sections aforementioned have a minimum and maximum in terms of percentages. For the SCs and the VJNTs the percentages range from 13 to 16 andi4 to 5, respectively. For the current term commencing from 1 July, 1988 the total number of vacancies in the posts of registrar came to 47. In terms of seats the percentages for the above two categories come to 6. 8 andj2. 2 respectively. In keeping with the rules the allocation was made. In the subject of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, there were only two vacancies. One was kept in the open category and the other allocated to the STs lot. A total of 6 reserved for the SCs were distributed in different subjects, not including Obstetrics and Gynaecology. VJNT's two were distributed one and one between Radiology and Surgery. No st was available for the Obstetrics and Gynaecology seat. Of the two vjnts selected, one was Respondent 3 and she got the benefit of the ST vacancy in Obstetrics and Gynaecology being made available for her category. The distribution as between SCs and VJNTs percentage or seatwise, was not exceeded.

(3.) PETITIONER's contention is that the VJNTs could not be the beneficiary of the situation arising from the unavailability of an ST to fill the reservation made for that category in the subject of Obsterics and Gynaecology. This was because such a conferment led to an excess in their entitlement. It was a different matter that in the final allocation there had been no contravention of the percentage or the seats reserved for vjnts. A notional fitment could not be excluded in the actual allocation. Therefore, the vacancy in Obstetrics and Gynaecology should have been offered to the SCs. That would have been adherence to the rules in the right sense, for thus only could the letter and the spirit be harmonised. The contention summarised above is contested by the respondents. They would have it that the construction canvassed by petitioner is a mechanical one. Flexibility in the application of the reservation policy is advocated by the rules themselves. In offering the ST vacancy to a VJNT candidate, no extra benefit has been conferred on them.