GAURI SAINI (MISS) Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is the daughter of Lt. Col. A.K. Saini, a serving member of the Indian Army, has challenged paragraph 2 of the Corrigendum, Annexure P-7, dated November 5, 1997, whereby it has been provided that candidates having passed the 10+2 class from Chandigarh (Union Territory) as well as from any Institute outside the State of Punjab were not eligible for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course of the Sri Guru Ram Dass Institute of Medical Sciences & Research, Amritsar. It is the petitioner's case that on account of the exigencies of her father's employment, she, though a domicile of the State of Punjab, had been unable to pass her 12th class Examination from the Punjab State as her father stood posted in Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) during the relevant period. The petitioner took the entrance test for admission to the said course which was conducted by the Panjabi University, Patiala on 27th May, 1997, and the result whereof was declared on 10th June, 1997. On 24th October, 1997, the admission notice (Annexure P-4) was published in the Tribune and the petitioner being fully eligible in accordance therewith as also with the admission brochure that had been issued by the respondent-Institute, applied for admission on 5th November, 1997. The respondent-Institute, however, issued a corrigendum (Annexure P-7) on 5th November, 1997, amending Clause 2(c) of the academic qualifications given in the admission brochure with the result that the petitioner become ineligible for being considered for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course.

(2.) While dealing with an identical situation in C.W.P. No. 2731 of 1998 (Kiran Dixit v. chandigarh Administrative and another) decided on 27.3.1990, with respect to a Notification issued by the Union Territory, Chandigarh, for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course to be conducted by the Government Medical Collage, sarai Building, Sector 32-A, Chandigarh, I have held that the condition, such as the one impugned in the present proceedings, such as the one impugned in the present proceedings, which has the effect of making a 100 per cent reservation with respect to local candidates on the basis of domicile and institutional preference, is bad in the light of various judgment of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. To my mind, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is application to the facts and of the aforesaid judgment is applicable to the facts and of the present case to that extent. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Paragraph 2 of the Annexure-7 cannot be sustained.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Mattewal, Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent-Institute has, however, pointed out that in Anant Madan v. State of Haryana and others, 1995 1 SLR 714a condition such as the present one has been upheld by the Supreme Court. As already discussed in Kiran Dixit's case , the clause interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was substantially different and made an exception in favour of certain categories of employees posted outside the State of Haryana on account of exigencies of service. In the case in hand, no exception has been carved out with the result that 100 per cent reservation has been made on the basis of domicile as also institutional preference with respect to admissions to the respondent-Institute.