GURKIRAN GHUMAN Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Punjabi University Patiala, conducted a common Entrance Examination known the P.M.T for admission to the M.B.B.S, B.D.S. and B.A.M.S. Courses in the State of Punjab, on the basis of a prospectus issued for that purpose. Clause 3 of the prospectus provided that the applications were to be received by May 3, 1997 and Clause 3.4(c) further stipulated that the applications received after the prescribed dates would not be entertained and would be rejected without intimation to the candidates. The petitioner and respondents No. 8 and 9 hereinafter called the private respondents filed their applications in terms of Clause 7 of the prospectus wherein it was provided that 2% of the seats were to be reserved as the Defence Quota. The petitioner and the private respondents appeared in the P.M.T. Examination and on the declaration of the result, the petitioner got 608 marks whereas respondents No. 8 and 9 secured 380 and 516 marks respectively. The petitioner, however, was not granted admission in the M.B.B.S. as per her merit in the Defence Quota whereas the private respondents were granted admission on the basis that even amongst this category, preferences had been set out and as they fell within Category G-1 given in Clause 7 i.e. being the children of defence personnel who had either been killed or disabled to the extent of 50% or more in action, and that this Category was to be given preference over the petitioners Category G-3 i.e. the children of serving/ex-servicemen. The petitioner's father, thereafter, submitted a representation dated 7.9.1997 Annexure P-3 to the petition pointing out that the late Major M.S. Sekhon, father of respondent No. 8 had died due to Meningitis, while he was on leave and being an officer of the 61st Cavalry, which was a Unit used for ceremonial functions, it could not be said that he had been killed in-action. As the representation bore no fruit, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued to the respondents and various replies have put in on their behalf. The broad facts as they have been stated, have not been refuted, though an inference which is at variance with the petitioner's case has been attempted. It has been pointed out by respondent No. 1 to 4 in their reply that the private respondents had claimed reservation under Category G-1 and having been found to be under that category, they had a preferential right to admission over the petitioner who was in Category G-3. Respondents No. 5 and 6 have also filed their reply and it has been pleaded that late Major M.S. Sekhon had expired on 4.1.1989 while on active service with 61 Cavalry and as per Certificates Annexures R-1 and R-2, the widow of the deceased had been sanctioned Special Family Pension on account of the fact that his death was attributable to military service (on active service). Respondent No. 8 has also filed his reply and it has been pointed out that the writ petition ought to be dismissed on the short ground that it had been filed belatedly. It has also been pleaded that the said respondent had been selected for admission in the M.B.B.S. Course in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and he had given up this seat on 5th November, 1997 to join the Medical College, Patiala and that the seat vacated by him in Shimla had since been allotted to some one else. It has, accordingly, been prayed that in this set of circumstances, the admission granted to him at Patiala should not be disturbed for this reason as well. On merits, it has been pleaded that late Major M.S. Sekhon had a very good career while in service and had fallen down from a horse and had died thereafter on account of those injuries leaving behind a young family and as his death could be attributable to military service, respondent No. 8's categorisation was fully justified. A similar stand has been taken by respondent No. 9 in his written statement and it has been pleaded that the disability suffered by his father which had impaired his hearing ability and led to his premature retirement from the Army, was on account of active service in the Gulmarg area of Jammu and Kashmir in the year 1977.

(3.) Mr. Deepak Sibal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised various arguments before me. He has pointed out that as per the conditions laid down in the prospectus, the applications complete in all particulars were to be filed before the 3rd May, 1997 and as the certificates relevant to their reserved category that is Annexure P-1 pertaining to respondent No. 8 and Annexure P-2 to respondent No. 9 had admittedly been filed long after the date, they could not be entertained. He has in addition urged that even accepting that these certificates could have been taken into account, yet, it could not be said that the death/disability had been caused in-action and as such, they could not be categorised as Category G-1.