ASHISH AWASTHI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed in this Court challenging the action of the respondents, whereby the petitioner had been denied admission to the MBBS/BDS course, with the prayer to issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondents.

(2.) In the petition, it was alleged that the petitioner is a resident of Himachal Pradesh and that the father of the petitioner was appointed as a Cashier in the State Bank of India at Surangani Branch in District Chamba in the year 1983 and he is still working at Surangani till date. It was further alleged that Surangani, District Chamba has been declared as backward area by the State of Himachal Pradesh. It was further alleged that the petitioner was born in the year 1986 and at that time, the father of the petitioner was working at Surangani, District Chamba. It was alleged that the petitioner was brought up in the backward area i.e. Surangani like any other resident of a backward area and had faced all the hardships/difficulties and handicaps in the absence of basic amenities available to any person residing in a normal area. It was alleged that the petitioner did his entire education form Class -1 upto Class 10+2 i.e. primary, middle, matriculation and secondary education form B.S.P. Central School, Surangani, District Chamba (H.P.).

(3.) It was alleged that the Himachal Pradesh University had issued Advocate(s): prospectus for 2004 -2005 Sessions for the Pre -Medial Entrance, Test, copy Annexure P -5 and as per clause 2.3. of the prosecutors, three seats in Medical College, Shimla, 2 sets in Medical College, Shimla 2 eats in Medial College Tanda and one seat in Dental College, Shimla, were reserved for candidates belonging to backward areas. It was further alleged that in clause 2.5 of the prospectus it had been notified that the seat reserved for backward areas would be filled u in the manner prescribed therein. It was further alleged that under Clauses 2.17 of the said prospectus, definition of bonafide residents of Himachal Pradesh had been given. It was further alleged that since the petitioner was residing at Surangani, District Chamba, right form his birth, he was issued a certificate with regard to his belonging to a backward area by the competent authority and similarly he was issued Advocate(s): certificate of bonafide Himachal, copies Annexure P -6 and P -7. It was further alleged that the petitioner had submitted his application form to the University well within time seeking admission to the aforesaid course and was issued Roll No. 14730 and he also appeared in the Entrance Test on 26.5.2004 and secured 107 out of 150 marks. Subsequently, the marks secured by the petitioner were reviewed and the marks of the petitioner were increased from 107 to