SUMIT JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner appeared in Pre-Medical Entrance Test in the year 2006 in the seats meant for freedom fighter class and he was ranked 4th in the list of Freedom Fighter class. Respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 also appeared in Pre- Medical Entrance Test in the year 2006 in the seats meant for freedom fighter class but they were ranked above the petitioner in the list of Freedom Fighter Class.

(2.) The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 had secured enough marks in the Pre-Medical Entrance Test in the year 2006 to secure admission in the seats for open unreserved category but the authorities, instead of giving admission to the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the seats for open unreserved category, gave them admission into three seats reserved for freedom fighters although they opted admission in the seats meant for open unreserved category. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.11474/2006 before this Court contending inter alia that had respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 been admitted to the seats meant for open unreserved category on the basis of their merit, the petitioner would have got admission in one of the seats meant for the freedom fighter class. A learned Single Judge of this Court in his order dated 28.9.2006 held that under Rule 5.6 of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), a candidate had the option either to apply for freedom fighter class or to apply for open unreserved category and as respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 had applied for admission in the freedom fighter class, they could be considered for admission only in the seats meant for freedom fighter class and not for the seats meant for open unreserved category. It was held by the learned Single Judge that Rule 9.14 of the said Rules provides that a candidate, belonging to SC/ST/OBC category, whose name also appears in the merit or waiting list of unreserved category besides the merit/waiting list of his/her own reserved category, had the option during counselling to select the seat either from reserved category or from unreserved category, but similar provision has not been made in the Rules in the case of students belonging to freedom fighter class. The learned Single Judge also held in the order dated 28.9.2006 in Writ Petition No.11474/2006 that so long as the Rules are not challenged by the petitioner, admissions will have to be given to the different candidates according to the Rules by the authorities and in the absence of clear provision in the Rules similar to Rule 9.14 for candidates belonging to freedom fighter category, the contention of the petitioner that respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 should have been given admission in the seats meant for open unreserved category and not in the seats meant for freedom fighter class, cannot be considered. In view of the aforesaid observations of the learned Single Judge in the order dated 28.9.2006 in Writ Petition No.11474/2006, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging Rule 9.14 of the Rules as ultra vires Articles 14 and 19 (i)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Mr.Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in Ritesh R. Sah Vs. Dr.Y.L.Yamul and others (1996) 3 SCC 253 the Supreme Court has taken a view that a student, belonging to the reserved category, who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit cannot be treated as admitted against the seats reserved for the reserved category but he should be treated as a candidate admitted in the seats meant for unreserved category. He argued that in view of the said law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ritesh R.Sah Vs. Dr.Y.L.Yamul and others (supra) Rule 9.14 of the Rules, which does not provide that students, who belong to freedom fighter class, who on the basis of their merits are entitled to get admission into seats for the unreserved category should be treated as admitted into the seats meant for unreserved category is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.