INA SAWHNEY Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Punjab, vide notification dated May 9, 1992, invited applications for admission to the M.B.B.S/B.D.S and B.A.M.S. courses for the session 1992-93 in the three State Medical Colleges, the Dental College, Amritsar, the Dental Wing Medical College, Patiala, and Ayurvedic College, Patiala. It was notified that the Pre-Medical Test (PMT), would be held by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, on behalf of the Government of Punjab. The petitioner being eligible to appear in the test, submitted her Application Form and appeared in the examination held on July 4, 1992, and on the declaration of the result, was placed at Serial No. 1876. It was provided in paragraphs No. 4.1 and 4.2 of the prospectus that 15% of the total number of seats available for MBBS and BDS would be filled on an All India Basis through a test to be conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, whereas the others would be filed from amongst those who had taken the PMT. Provision was also made to reserve a certain percentage of seats for the handicapped, such as children/widows of defence personnel, more particularly described in Paras III(c)(iv), III(c)(viii) and III(c)(ix) of the prospectus (fully detailed later on). It was further notified that the seats left vacant in any reserved category owing to non-availability of eligible candidates were to be filled from the eligible candidates belonging to the General Category. It appears that as no seat from the category of Central Board of School Education had been filled in, the State Government took a decision Annexure P-2 dated October 8, 1992 that half of the seats for MBBS and BDS courses would be filled by nominations to be made by the State of Punjab and the other half by the candidates selected in the test held by the Central Board of School Education. Admittedly, the nominations were made and these instructions were impugned by way of a writ petition in the Supreme Court in the case of Saurabh Mathur v. Director General of Health Services and another, Writ Petition (C) No. 48 of 1993 and other connected petitions and the Supreme Court found that the nominations could not have been made but as there had been a fait accompli nomination of the candidates was not disturbed, but the petitioners too were granted admissions by the Court. In the meantime, the present petition was filed once again impugning Annexure P2. Notice of motion was issued on February 23, 1993, but as the State failed of file a reply despite a number of opportunities having been given the petitioner was granted provisional admission by this Court vide order dated March 12, 1993. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court and was set aside but the High Court was directed to dispose of the main petition itself as expeditiously as possible. The case of the petitioner now is that in view of the prospectus and notification issued on May 9, 1992 all the seats which remained unfilled up to the 2nd week of February, 1993 from the Central Board of Secondary Education candidates or any other category on account of non-availability of eligible candidate, were to be given to the general category candidates and in that eventuality Annexure P-2 dated October 8, 1992 providing for nomination against half of the seats reserved for the candidates nominated by the Central Board of School Education and Annexure R-2 dated September 3, 1992 authorising nomination against the three unfilled seats from the categories detailed below :-

(2.) A reply has been filed by respondent No. 4 Dr. Sudesh Khanna, Officiating Principal, Government Medical College, Amritsar, in which the broad facts have not been controverted. It has been admitted that the nominations were made against half of the seats reserved for the C.B.S.E. candidates and also of three students from amongst the three categories mentioned above as there was no candidate available for admission from amongst these categories.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and find that the writ petition deserves to succeed. It is to be noted that in the prospectus issued and duly notified on May 9, 1992, there was a clear stipulation that any seat that remained unfilled from the reserved categories, meaning thereby any or all such categories was to be filled in from general category on the basis of the PMT Examination. Admittedly, vide Annexure P-2, dated October 8, 1992, right to nominate 50% of the total number of seats which were to be filled from CBSE candidates was arrogated to itself by the State Government and vide Annexure R-2, dated September 3, 1992, the State Government again allowed itself the right to make nominations against the three categories mentioned in Paragraph III (c) above. As already observed, this Court in Amardeep Singh Sahota's and Ravdeep Kaur's case, , has held that once the prospectus is issued, no amendment can be made therein retrospectively. It is, therefore, apparent that any seat from amongst the reserved categories that remained vacant were liable to be filled in from the general category according to the merit in the PMT. In the present case, however, as far as the nominations against the CBSE seats are concerned, no challenge can now be made by the petitioner in the light of the arrangement made before the Supreme Court in Saurabh Mathur's case , but the petitioner is entitled to stake a claim against the three seats dereserved on account of Annexure R-2, as this matter was not the subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court.