VANITA BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Vanita Bansal has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, especially in the nature of certiorari quashing the selection of respondent No. 5 in M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) at Govt. Medical College, Patiala. The petitioner has further made a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing respondents No. 1 to 4 to admit her in M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) at Govt. Medical College, Patiala, and/or for issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Courts finds fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that she completed her MBBS Degree in December, 1994. She joined the Punjab Civil Medical Services on 4.2.1997 and remained posted in rural area. On 26.6.2000 the Punjab Govt. issued notification for selection of students for admission to the three years Post Graduate Courses for the session 2000 by holding a Post Graduate Entrance Test. On 6.8.2000 the petitioner appeared in the test in 60% quota of PCMS doctors. The result was declared on 9.8.2000 and the petitioner secured rank 62, whereas respondent No. 5 secured rank 88. It is the case of the petitioner that as per notification of the Punjab Govt., 3% seats are kept reserved for physically handicapped persons. This category of physically handicapped persons is further divided into blindness/low vision 1%, hearing impair- ment t%, orthopaedically handicap 1%. Since there were 106 seats in various specialities in 60% quota of PCMS doctors, so at least one seat for each sub-category was supposed to be reserved. But only 1 seat was reserved for sub-category of blindness/low vision in M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) at Govt. Medical College, Patiala. Respondent No. 5 applied for admission in sub-category of Orthopaedically handicap and not against blindness/low vision category. Interviews were held on 28.8.2000 and the petitioner got her name written in the waiting list of M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) at Govt. Medical College, Patiala at No. 1. According to the prospectus in case eligible candidates for admission against reserved category are not available then such seats will be offered to general category candidates and vice-versa. The case set up by the petitioner further is that since no candidate having blindness/low vision was available for whom 1 seat in M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.) was reserved, this seat as per the waiting list should go to the petitioner and not to respondent No. 5 as he applied on Orthopaedically Handicap category. The petitioner made a representation that the reserve seat should be declared as open seat and the same should have been given to the petitioner because she was at No. 1 in the waiting list of M.D. (Ob. and Gynae.), but to no effect. Rather, the seat has been given to respondent No. 5, who applied under sub-category of Orthopaedically handicap and not under blindness/low vision. Therefore, the allotment of seat to respondent No. 5 is bad in the eyes of law. On these premises the petitioner has made the above prayer.

(3.) The notice of writ petition was given to the respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 4 filed written statement through the Principal, Govt. Medical College, Patiala. These respondents admit that 3% posts were reserved for physically handicapped (i.e. 1% blindness/low vision, l% hearing impairment and 1% orthopaedically handicapped). It was also admitted by respondent No. 1 and 4 that if candidates of one sub-category are not available/eligible, then the seats can be offered to other sub-category under the main category "physically handicapped". Further, it was pleaded by these respondents that a hundred point roster was supposed to he maintained category-wise, subject-wise and institution-wise with base year 1993. It was also pleaded that only one seat under 60% quota in M.D. Gynae. was reserved for physically handicapped category. With regard to the case of respondent No. 5, it was pleaded by respondents No. 1 and 4 that Dr. Jasbir Singh, respondent No. 5, applied under sub-category of orthopaedically handicapped of physically handicapped category. Since no candidate was available in other sub-category, as such respondent No. 5 was rightly considered under sub-category blindness/low vision as per the criteria of the prospectus.