MANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point which calls for consideration in this petition is "as to whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category who had secured more marks in competition than some of the general category candidates should be admitted against a reserved seat or should he be given a seat in the general category ?"

(2.) Admitted facts are that the petitioner belongs to Chhimba caste which has been declared as one of the Backward Classes for the State of Punjab. State Council of Educational Research and Training, Punjab released an admission notice in a Jalandhar Punjabi Daily, namely Ajit, on 12-51995. As per the admission notice, it was notified that the Punjab Government (Education Department) has decided to hold admission test for admission to ETT Session 1995-97 for admission to the Initial Teachers Training Course (ITT) in all the 12 District Education and Training Institutions and one J. B. T. Institution. Admission was to be made on the basis of district-wise merit list of the candidate. It was further provided that 100 seats each i.e. 50 for boys and 50 for girls were allocated for each district. 5% seats were reserved for the members of the Backward Classes, meaning thereby that our of 100 seats for each district, 5 seats were earmarked for the members of the Backward Classes. Eligibility for admission to the ETT Course was 50% marks in the admission test for the general category candidates and 45% for the candidates belonging to SC/ST. Total marks prescribed for the admission test were 200. In pursuance to the abovesaid admission notice, petitioner applied for taking admission test for admission to the ETT Course as a Backward Class candidate against Amritsar District. Admission test was held on 6-8-1995 and the result thereof was published in a Punjab Daily newspaper Ajit dt. 26-2-1996. Petitioner was shown to have secured 107 marks and was placed in the waiting list at serial No. 1 amongst the Backward Class candidates (boys). Respondents prepared separate merit lists for different categories which has resulted in admission of general category candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner. It has been asserted by the petitioner, which has been admitted by the respondents, that 7 general category boys and 7 general category girls, who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner were shown selected for admission to the ETT Ccurse. In other words, instead of getting the benefit of reservation earmarked for Backward Class candidates, petitioner has been put to a disadvantage inasmuch as had he applied as a general category candidate he would have easily got admission to the Courts in question as he would have ranked at serial No. 27 amongst 33 general category (boys) selected candidates.

(3.) This petition has been filed with a twofold grievance; (i) that out of five seats earmarked for the Beckward Class candidates, two boys and one girl i.e. three candidates were put in the list of selected candidates and the petitioner was kept at serial No. 1 in the waiting list, which could not be done and the petitioner should have been adjusted against a seat meant for Backward Class candidates (boys). Second grievance of the petitioner is that a common merit list of all the reserved and unreserved categories should have been prepared and the seats filled up as per that merit list. If any candidate from the reserved category fell in that list, then he should have been treated to have been admitted in the general category. After that the reserved category candidates should have been considered for admission against the reserved seats.