MANDEEP KAUR SAHOTA Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANDEEP Kaur Sahota, petitioner herein, while claiming herself to be a distinguished sports -woman, takes strong exception for making no reservation for distinguished sports -person in the M.B.B.S. course as also for providing minimum 50% of marks in the Common Entrance Test as a condition precedent for seeking admission in the MBBS as reflected in the prospectus issued by the Punjab University, Chandigarh.

(2.) EVEN though the challenge to the prospectus issued by the Punjab University for non -reservation of any seat in the sports category and providing eligibility criteria of minimum 50% marks is based upon various notifications and the provisions of the Constitution of India, yet it would be useful to notice bare minimum facts constraining the petitioners to approach this Court through present petition filed by her under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MR . Khehar, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently contends that the petitioner had rigorously devoted herself to achieve better grading in sports with the sole object of seeking admission in MBBS Course against reserved seats meant for sports category and thus she could not be denied admission by deleting from the prospectus the reservation earlier provided for the distinguished sports persons. It is also being argued that the U.T. Chandigarh, through its Home Secretary had issued instructions to all the Administrative Secretaries in the U.T. as also the Heads of the Departments in the U.T. Chandigarh, with regard to reservation for admission in educational institutions controlled by the Chandigarh Administration. In the said instructions it was clearly provided that 2% of the seats would be filled -up from amongst the sportsmen -sportswomen as per the guidelines annexed with the said instructions. It is, thus, the case of the petitioner that as long as the instructions, as referred to above, dated May 7, 1993, Annexure P -3, were in force and had not been rescinded, superseded or altered, respondent No. 2 was not empowered to delete the reservation provided in the sports category by issuing prospectus contrary to the instructions or guidelines, referred to above.