RUPINDER SAHOTA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER Respondent No. 5 - -Ankit Goyal and Respondent No. 6 - -Jasraman Kaur, who are wards of Ex -servicemen, could be denied admission to M.B.B.S. course against the seats reserved for children/widows of defence personnel killed or disabled to the extent of 50% or more in action, wards of gallantry awardees, children of serving personnel/Ex -servicemen simply because in the application forms filled for entrance test, they had shown their category as general is the only question which arises for determination in this petition filed by the Petitioner for quashing their admission to M.B.B.S. course at Government Medical Colleges, Patiala and Amritsar respectively and for issuance of a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to admit her to the said course.

(2.) FOR deciding the aforementioned question, we may briefly notice the facts. In pursuance of the Government of Punjab, Department of Medical Education and Research notification No. dated 10th May, 2002, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot (for short, the University) issued prospectus for Pre -Medical Entrance Test (for short, PMET) - -2002. The Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 applied for admission to PMET - -2002. They filled Optical Mark Reader (OMR) Application Forms in accordance with the instructions contained in Annexures 'E' and 'F' of the prospectus issued by the University. In column No. 8, the Petitioner gave code '19' meant for reserved category mentioned hereinabove and the wards of Punjab Police Men decorated with gallantry medals. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 gave code '11' meant for general category. The result of PMET - -2002 was declared by the University on 21st July, 2002. The same was published in the form of Gazette PMET - -2002. The Petitioner secured 552 marks as against 592 marks secured by Respondent No. 5 and 568 marks secured by Respondent No. 6. After the declaration of result, they filled admission forms attached to the prospectus. The Petitioner indicated her category as ward of Ex -serviceman with code '19'. However, in view of para 10 of the General Information contained in the advertisement issued by the Co -ordinator, PMET - -2002 and the note printed at the back of the cover page of Gazette PMET - -2002 published by the University, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 indicated their categories as Ex -servicemen with code '19' and general with code '11'; A large number of other candidates also indicated their choice for more than one categories . All of them appeared in counselling held by the University. At the end of the counselling, category -wise lists were issued by the University and displayed on the notice board. The merit list of the candidates, who had applied in the reserved category of children/widows of defence personnel killed or disabled to the extent of 50% or more in action, wards of gallantry awardees, children of serving personnel/Ex -servicemen, contained the following names and particulars: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_157_LAWS(P&H)2_2003.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE Petitioner has challenged the admission of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on the ground that after having shown themselves as candidates belonging to general category at the time of admission to PMET - -2002, they cannot change their category and Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 committed a grave illegality by considering their candidature for admission against the seats earmarked for reserved category which included children of Ex -servicemen. Her plea is that by having shown themselves as candidates of general category in the application forms for PMET - -2002, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 will be deemed to have given up their right to be considered against the reserved seats and, therefore, they could not have been admitted against the reserved seats meant for children of serving defence personnel and Ex -servicemen etc. She has further pleaded that the University committed serious illegality by not giving her the benefit of preference in terms of para 8(vii) of the prospectus.