LAWS(MPH)-2004-1-82

RAJEEV MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On January 07, 2004
RAJEEV MISHRA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions are involved in both these cases, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN both these cases, petitioners who are graduates in Ayurvedi Medicines and have completed the course in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine are seeking admission to the course of M.D. (Ayurved) for the year 2001-2002. In W.P. No. 1780/03, petitioners seek admission against a quota reserved for un-reserved male whereas in W.P. No. 1782/03, petitioner claims admission against a quota for OBC male. It is the case of the petitioners that in both these cases in the advertisement issued and in the call letter given to them for appearing in the selection process and for admission to P.G. course. As contended in Annexure P-4 in W.P. No. 1780/03 it is clearly mentioned that for the Academic year 2001-2002, one seat is reserved for OBC Male, one seat is reserved for Male and one for Female. It is the case of the petitioners that once the seats are reserved for OBC Male and unreserved Male, the rules are notified wherein the seats are shown as reserved for OBC Male and unreserved Male, it has to be filled by these candidates only. Referring to the statutory rules as published vide Annexure R-1 it was submitted by Shri Jain, learned Sr. counsel that for the session 2001, reservations have been made as per the aforesaid notification and without amending the aforesaid notification, change of the reservation policy and roaster system by executive order is unsustainable. Placing reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amer Khan v. State ofM.P. and Others 2002 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 114 = 2002 (1) MPJR 484 and in the case of State of M.P. and Others v. Pradeep Meshram and Others 2001 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 199 = 2001 (2) M.P. High Court Today 164, it was submitted by Shri Jain, learned Sr. Counsel that reservation notified cannot be changed.

(3.) THERE is no further reservation for male candidate. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents that inadvertently, by mistake, reservation was shown for male candidates in the advertisement, call letter and notification Annexure R-1 which is a mistake, it has been corrected and admission strictly in accordance with merit have been granted to the private respondents who have secured more marks than the petitioners.