MISS SIMRAT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Oral) - A grave injustice has happened to the petitioner. The petitioner passed her Matriculation examination in the year 1985 by securing 70% marks from the Punjab School Education Board and did her graduation from Sri Guru Nanak Dev University while securing first division in the year 1989. Respondent No. 3 Punjab Nurses Registration Council conducted a Pre Entrance Test for the General Nusing and Midwifery Courses and Multipurposes Health Workers Female (A.N.M.) A prospectus was issued according to which the last date for the receipt of applications was 8.10.1991 and the entrance test was to be held on 20.10.1991. Petitioner applied for admission to the aforesaid course and in pursuance of application, she was allotted Roll No. 670 and was asked to appear in the test at Jalandhar. Total number of seats for General Nursing and Mid Wifery Course were 550 and the seats were allocated for reservation to various categories like Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, Backward Area, Border Areas etc. There was 2% reservation for Backward Area candidates. Admittedly the petitioner was a Backward Area candidate and had applied. Even though the petitioner was first in merit in her own category, she did not get any information or letter from the respondent-College and after waiting for the whole month of Jan. and Feb., she approached the College on 3.3.1992 and she was told by the concerned authorities that admission cannot be given to her as she did not appear in the interview which was conducted by respondent No. 4 on 27.1.1992. Obviously, this was not taken by the petitioner to be a genuine ground and, therefore, she made number of visit at various concened places to seek justice but when all her attempts proved abortive, she has approached ths Court by way of present petition.

(2.) On the aforesaid facts, the case of the petitioner is that even though she has stood first in the Pre-entrance examination in her category, admission to her has been denied on wholly extraneous consideration.

(3.) This petition has been contested and in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been pleaded that the petitioner was absent on the date of interview i.e. 27.1.1992 and notice of interview was notified in leading newspapers by the director, Research and Medical Education, Punjab, Chandigarh. As the petitioner was absent in the interview, so she was not selected for the said course. It is pleaded that in the Prospectus, it is mentioned that the candidates seeking admission will be required to appear before the Selection Committee. Clause 3.2(x)(b)(ii) of the Prospectus is pressed into service for the aforesaid contention.