SANJAY SINGH, ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inter-departmental and bureaucratic rivalaries presumably, in existence in the secretariat have brought to the notice of the general public the conferment of State largess upon the children of bureaucrats by way of nomination to the M.B.B.S. Course. It is alleged that merit has again been made a casually on account of the acts of omission and commission attributable to the respondents. The nomination of Ms. Meghna Dubey, respondent No. 4, to the M.B.B.S. Course is attributed to the manoeuvring and manipulations of her parents who are admittedly I.A.S. Officers and and have important links in the bureaucracy of the State of Punjab. The nomination of their daughter cannot be termed to be co-incidence or made on the basis of either merit or in accordance with the settled provisions of law. The facts alleged in the petition are startling which reflect either the inefficiency of the administration or their wilful silence with the object of being passive partner in the conferrment of largesses upon the children of the privileged ignoring the claim of the meritorious candidates admittedly being in abundance and leaving no stone unturned to get admissions in the professional colleges for the purpose of making their career and serving the society.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the present petition show how some of the bureaucrats have washed their dirty linen in public for their vested interest. In this way the faith of the people in the democratic institutions appears to have been shaken requiring our interference in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the admitted facts, the State of Punjab had opted not to fill M.B.B.S. seats by nomination for the Session 1993-94 in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court. From the official notings on the file of the respondents it appears that during the year 1992 against the 6 M.B.B.S. and 1 B.D.S. seats in the nomination quota 34 candidates for M.B.B.S. and 7 for B.D.S. Courses were nominated. When the action of the State Government was challenged in the Supreme Court, it was held that the State had wrongly appropriated the seats of C.B.S.E. quota for the year 1992 and directed that 22 seats of M.B.B.S. and 3 of B.D.S. should be offered to the candidates to be sponsored by the D.G.H.S. In order to make room for these candidates of C.B.S.E. quota of 1991 it was decided to reduce an equal number of seats from amongst the total number of sets for the year 1993. It was pointed out that the State had already overutilsed the nomination quota for the years 1992 and 1993. It was mentioned that, " as such it will be fair and just that instead of utilising the vacant seats, the details of which are given at NP/4, through nominations the same are filled up as per the proposal at page 5 ante. In case the vacant seats are not offered to the candidates on the waiting list there is a great possibility that such candidates may knock the doors of the Court against the reduction of seats for the year 1993 and the nominations so made, may also be called in question." Vide order of the Government dated 6.7.1993 a corrigendum was issued modifying the Punjab Government notification No. 22/348/92-5 HBIII/12428-30 dated 20.5.1993 and in pursuance of the Supreme Court judgment pronounced in Writ Petition Nos. 48, 154, 333, 391, 370, 383 and 388 of 1993 Saurabh Mathu etc v. Director General of Health Services, New Delhi and another it was decided that out of the total number of seats meant for General Category in M.B.B.S. Course, six will be offered to the candidates sponsored by Director, General Health Services and the seats were directed to be reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, Backward Classes, Border Area and Backward area candidates to the extent specified in the aforesaid corrigendum. Five seats of M.B.B.S. Course were directed to be offered to the candidates sponsored by Director, General Health Services. It was specifically stated that there shall be no State Government nominee. However, vide order dated 12.7.1994, the earlier government notification of 20.5.1993 was again amended to the following effect:

(3.) The nominations to the M.B.B.S. made in the year 1994 were challenged before us in Lawyer's initiative through Shri R.S. Bains, Advocate v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 2 RSJ 553, the said writ petition was allowed after quashing of admissions made by nomination and the nominated candidates who were parties in that petition was set aside. The judgment of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court. Respondent No. 4, Meghna Dubey, is shown to have not been impleaded as formal party in the aforesaid writ petition.