SANGLAKPAM HARIPRIYA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is basically for directing the state-respondents to nominate her for undergoing MBBS course in the Medical college of her choice for the year 2007-2008 as a nominee of the State of Manipur on the basis of the qualifying marks secured by her in the Qualifying Examination held on 10. 6. 2007.

(2.) FOR better appreciation of the controversy involved in the case, suffice it to reproduce only the relevant facts as pleaded by the parties. For nomination of a candidate to undergo MBBS/bds Courses in various medical colleges as the nominee for the State of Manipur, there is a set of rules framed by the Government of Manipur known as "the Manipur MBBS/bds Entrance Examination (Selection of Candidates for Nomination) Rules, 2004 ("the Rules" for short ). Under the Rules, the candidates for nomination are selected by the Selection Board on the basis of the written test of all the eligible candidates. The State Government, in turn, makes the nomination for the said Courses on the basis of the Select Lists prepared by the said Selection Board from various categories of candidates, viz. General, OBC, SC, ST, Ex-Servicemen, etc. The petitioner admittedly belongs to the OBC ("other Backward Class") category and, having passed the Class 12th Examination conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary Education, Manipur, was eligible to appear in the said Examination. She accordingly sat for the said examination as a candidate against the seats reserved for OBC under Roll No. 1985. The result of the examination (the qualifying Test) was declared on 11. 6. 2007 in which she found a place at Sl. No. 30 of the combined merit list published by the Selection Board by scoring 364 marks out of 400 marks.

(3.) IT would appear that based on the aforesaid combined merit list, the Select List of candidates belonging to General category, OBC, Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, etc. were separately prepared by the Selection Board, which were thereafter published on 31. 7. 2007 in accordance with the provisions of Rule 17 (5) of the Rules and were then submitted to the State Government. There is no dispute at the bar that the petitioner was initially placed at Sl. No. 30 of the merit list, but when she was found to be in tie with two other candidates, their ranking was determined in order of the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination whereupon she came to be placed at Sl. No. 31 in the merit list. It, however, appears that the petitioner along with six other candidates belonging to OBC category, who secured higher marks than the petitioner, were placed in the merit list of the unreserved category. According to the State respondents, since the seats for unreserved category were open to all, the names of the reserved category candidates like the petitioner and the six other OBC candidates were accordingly placed above the reserved candidates in order of merit and, as such, her name could not be included in the list of OBC candidates. It may at this stage be noted that the other six candidates belonging to the OBC category, who secured higher marks than the petitioner, were apparently accommodated against the vacancies for unreserved category as per the reservation policy.