SANYAT MISRA Vs. Y S PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed by a candidate/applicant who could not secure admission to the course "Floriculture and Landscaping" in the Post Graduate College of Horticulture, for the academic session 1998-99 under the scheme announced by the Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, H. P. The claim centres around and involves the interpretation to be placed on a clause pertaining to reservation of seats in the prospectus issued by the University concerned, and it is unnecessary to delve at the facts in great details. In the said course pertaining to Floriculture and Landscaping the Academic Council of the University has approved the intake capacity for the session in question at the M. Sc. level two seats and Ph. D. level three seats. There is no controversy also with reference to the fact that having regard to the stipulation contained in clause (8) of the prospectus relating to the reservation of seats and the provisions contained therein that 75 per cent of the seats shall be reserved for the domicile of the Himachal Pradesh, two of the three seats have been earmarked for Himachali candidates and one for open category and it is on that basis the admission process has been pursued and selections have been notified on the basis of the recommendations made by the admission committee. It is seen from the said notification filed as Annexure PD that as against the two seats reserved for Himachali candidate there was only one eligible candidate within the category who could be selected and such person was one Narender Pathak son of Baldev Chand. As against the open category of one seat available, one Anurag Singh son of Shri Sukhbir Singh has been selected. A writ petition has been filed by some other candidate challenging the selection of Anurag Singh and that writ petition is pending and so far as the claim in the present writ petition is concerned, we are not concerned with the selection of said Anurag Singh as against the open category since it is also not challenged by the petitioner in this case. The claim of the petitioner is with reference to the one reserved seat, earmarked for Himachali candidate but which could not be filled up from such deserving Himachali candidate and has fallen vacant in respect of which the University has issued an admission notice filed as Annexure PF on 3-2-1999 inviting applications to fill up the said seat afresh. It is at that stage the petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the procedure adopted for re-advertising instead of making available the said seat also for the open candidate and filling up the same with the open candidates available and said to be eligible for admission as open candidate against the said seat.

(2.) The submission on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner in pursuing the stand taken in the writ petition is that in terms of "note" to clause 8(a) of the prospectus the seat/seats which falls vacant on account of there being no candidate available under the reserved category shall be filled from the open quota from category (a) above and it was premature for the University without attempting to fill up likewise, but to go otherwise to readvertising to fill up the seat which has fallen vacant also in favour of a Himachali candidate once over again. Per contra, Mr. B. S. Attri, learned counsel for the respondent University tried to justify the stand taken by the University contending that the reservation of seat shown in the prospectus at page 17, para 8 of Chapter II refers to reservation made to candidates of the category of SC/ST and women etc. under the Himachali quota and according to the learned counsel for the University, as per the note in question if no candidate is available under those categories of SC/ST and women etc. the same are required to be filled up from other candidates from category (a) above, namely, Himachali candidate only and not the candidates from other States, namely, category (b) and the reservation of seats for non-Himachali candidate, according to the learned counsel, is provided only under clause (b) of clause 8 at page 18 of the prospectus and not otherwise.

(3.) We have carefully considered the said submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side.