BHARTI GUPTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief: (a) Declare the act of the respondents of reserving seven degree post graduation and 3 diploma post graduation course seats for the session 1998 -2000, 2001 for HPHS -1 Officers having served in hard and difficult areas as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and quash clauses 3.2 Note A and clause 3.2 (ii) & 3.10 of the prospectus by declaring the same as ultra virus and also quash Government letter No. health (B) 12 2/ 96 dated 23.3.1996 by declaring the same as ultra vires. (b) Direct the respondents fill in seats meant for HPHS Officers having served in Hard and difficult areas from amongst HPHS -I Officers competing in general/open category; (c) Declare the act of the respondents of reserving loss than 66.6 percent degree seats for in service candidates as bad and in violation of the conditions of the brochure and quash the same and direct the respondents to offer 66.6 percent seats in degree and diploma courses to in service candidates. (d) Direct respondents to offer subjects to different categories of candidates as per roster and not to repeat subjects allotted to one category in 1998 -2000 -2001 course again in 1999 -2001 -2002 course. (e) Direct the respondents to produce before the Honble Court the relevant record pertaining to case and to pay to the applicant the cost of the application. (f) Any other relief which the Honble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be granted, in the interest of justice.

(2.) A miscellaneous application No. 2707/99 in CA 2432/99 was filed by two applicants seeking to be impleaded as respondents No. 4 & 5. The same was allowed and the applicants in the miscellaneous applicants were added as respondents No. 4 & 5. Another miscellaneous application No. 2722/99 in OA 2432/99 was also filed seeking that she be impleaded as respondent in O.A. The same was also allowed and she was added respondent No. 6. Reply on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 was filed. However, no separate reply on behalf of respondents No. 4,5 & 6 was filed and their counsel adopted the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3. The learned counsel Smt. Trisha Sharma, on behalf of respondents No. 4&5 and Shri Dilip Sharma, Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 6 argued that the H.P. Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction and that it is not a service matter and is a purely educational matter, which was not required to be adjudicated upon by the H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The selection of post graduate degree and diploma courses, cannot fall within the ambit of service matter as per section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunal Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 & 5 Mrs. Trisha Sharma, argued that service matter has been defined in section 3(q) which is as follows : "Service matters" - in relation to a person, means all matters relating to the conditions of his service in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any state or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India, or, as the case may be, of any corporation (or society) owned or controlled by the Government, as respects - (i) remuneration (including allowances), pension and other retirement benefits; (ii) tenure including confirmation, seniority, promotion, reservation, premature retirement and super -annuation; (iii) leave of any kind; (iv) disciplinary matters; or (v) any other matter whatsoever; The present case is not covered in the definition of service matters. It is neither a case of remuneration, Pension nor confirmation, seniority, promotion, reversion, superannuation, leave of kind, disciplinary matters. It is a dispute regarding reservation of seats in Indira Gandhi Medical College, in post graduate courses, in various disciplines, as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and matter lies within the jurisdiction of Honble High Court of H.P.