SHAMLY JINDAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stakes a claim for admission to medical college, as a person who is a resident of Punjab with 85% quota reserved for such residents. The petitioner would contend that she was born in Punjab although not residing in the State and hence, entitled to be treated as resident of Punjab. The petitioner challenges the notification issued on 07.03.2014 by the Government of Punjab that sets out an eligibility of the candidate to be not merely a resident of Punjab but also a person who should have passed his +2 from any institute, any school in Punjab. The petitioner's candidature was sought to be kept out of reckoning within the 85% quota on the ground that she had finished her +2 schooling from Delhi which is outside the State of Punjab.

(2.) The contention on behalf of the State as well as the University is that a resident of Punjab cannot be merely a person who was born in Punjab as originally set forth in the policy issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Policies II Branch), dated 06.06.1996. The contention is that this policy issued in 1996 for the category of persons who would qualify for being treated as a resident came to be modified in so far as it related to its qualification for admission to medical colleges when the Department of Medical Education and Research has been consistently adding a requirement of a pass in +2 also from a recognized institution situate in Punjab. The counsel for the State would refer to the notification passed subsequently as well on 25.05.2001, 10.05.2002, 14.05.2003, 17.06.2004, 25.04.2005, 24.04.2006, 21.05.2007, 31.03.2008 and 05.06.2013, all of which have superadded a condition of person requiring to have passed +2 from a recognized institution situated in Punjab. The State would also refer to the fact that the notification issued requiring even a 10th class pass must be from an institute in Punjab has been a subject of challenge before this court and it remains suspended. According to the State, therefore, the petitioner cannot qualify for a consideration within the 85% quota.

(3.) The counsel for the University would add a second string to the bow, as it were, by mounting an attack that the petitioner's candidature as a resident of Punjab was denied even the last year when she sought for admission within the Sate quota and in the counselling held for MBBS course session 2012-13, the University had declared her ineligible on the ground that she had passed her +2 examination from school situate outside Punjab. The counsel would urge that the petitioner had deliberately concealed this fact from the writ petition.