GAURAV WALIA Vs. GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, prayer has been made for issue of a mandamus to admit the petitioners in.the M.B.B.S. Course against the payment seats on the basis of the merit secured by them at the Pre-Medical Test conducted by the Guru Nanak Dev University, Amntsar (hereinafter referred to as the University') as per the request made by the State Government. The petitioners have also prayed for striking down clause 2.1(i) of the Prospectus issued by the University (respondent No. 1).

(2.) Brief factual matrix of the cases is that in response to the prospectus and the advertisement issued by the University in May, 1995, the petitioners submitted their applications before the last date specified in the advertisement. They appeared in the examination conducted by the University some time in June, 1995. Result of the examination was declared in July, 1995 and as per the result card issued to the petitioners, petitioner-Gaurav Walia was shown at merit position No. 7; petitioner- Amit Sethi was shown at position No. 8; petitioner Sumit Ahuja was shown at position No. 22 and petitioner Anshuman Ahuja was shown at position No. 17, amongst the candidates who were treated eligible for admission against payment seats. The petitioners have stated that although they were entitled to be admitted against the paid seats in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 1 SCC 645, the respondents have deprived them of the admission only on the ground that they are not Punjab domiciles. According to the petitioners, all the candidates admitted against paid seats are Punjab Domiciles and this shows that on the basis of wholly extraneous reasons, the respondents have deprived them of their right to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. Course. In substance, the contention of the petitioners is that by prescribing an unconstitutional condition, namely, the domicile of Punjab as a condition to the admission, the respondents have violated their fundamental right of equality as enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The respondents have opposed the writ petitions. Their case is that the admissions have been made strictly in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Unnikrishnan's case . It has been stated that after the admissions against the free seats were made, the candidates were offered paid seats and the admissions have been made strictly according to the comparative merit secured by the candidates.