JAYANTI PRABHA BHARTI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is Back Ward Class Girl appeared in the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination (B.C.E.C.E.) 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "the examination") and was placed at merit serial general 1647, Backward Class 811 and Reserved Category Girl (hereinafter referred to as "R.C.G.) 180 of the Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics (PCM) group, as is evident from letter of the Controller of Examination of the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") bearing No. 1502 of 2007 dated 16.8.2007, Annexure-6, whereunder she was asked to appear for counseling in the R.C.G. category on 19.9.2007 at 9 A.M.

(2.) It is submitted on her behalf that when she appeared for counseling on the date fixed she was offered admission in M.I.T., Muzaffarpur Leather Technology Branch which offer according to the petitioner is contrary to the provisions contained in Sub-clause (Kha)(i) of Clause 14.4 of the prospectus issued for the said examination by the Board extract whereof is contained in Annexure-5 to this application. According to the counsel for the petitioner all the seats in the category of R.C.G. ought to have been filled up on the date which was notified for counseling of the R.C.G. category i.e. on 19.9.2007 and as on 19.9.2007 only one seat was available for R.C.G. category, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the seats meant for R.C.G. category has been offered to other categories which is contrary to Sub-clause (Kha)(i) of Clause 14.4 of the prospectus which inter alia provides that 3 per cent of the total seats in each college and in each discipline be offered for R.C.G. Category. In view of the aforesaid clause according to the petitioner 20 seats meant for R.C.G. category ought to have been filled up on or after 19.9.2007 and not before the said date as has been done in the present case depriving the petitioner the benefit of the seats reserved for R.C.G. category which seats according to the petitioner have been filled up by persons of the other category thereby depriving petitioner of the seat reserved for R.C.G. category. In this connection learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Nidhi Sinha v. The State of Bihar and Ors.,2000 2 PLJR(SC) 108 whereunder this Court has held that those girl students who have also competed in the B.C. category on account of better merit must not be included in the R.C.G. category for the purpose of computation of percentage of reservation for the R.C.G. category.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Board with reference to the counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 submitted that petitioner in view of her merit position in the category of R.C.G. was offered admission in Leather Technology at M.I.T., Muzaffarpur but she declined to avail the offer and the prayer made in the writ petition is absolutely misconceived as no candidate either in the Backward Class category or the R.C.G. Category below to the petitioner in the merit position has been offered admission and in view of such fact the writ petition be dismissed. In this connection learned Counsel for the Board has referred to the averments made in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board which has been affirmed on 18.12.2007 and with reference to those statements submitted that 20 seats were available for the R.C.G. category out of which one seat was required to be filled up from a disabled R.C.G. He also submitted that seven R.C.G. candidates who appeared for counseling with the General Category candidates but preferred to opt R.C.G. seats instead of general seat's offered to them during the counseling were allowed to jump over and take admission against R.C.G. category allotted seat and seven number of seats from among the last vacant seats of general category were blocked as compensation for allotting to R.C.G. candidates of lower merit so that the required percentage of reservation for R.C.G. candidates remains unchanged. It was also pointed out with reference to statement made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said supplementary counter affidavit that 19 R.C.G. candidates who have been admitted against 19 number of R.C.G. seats have superior merit as would appear from Tabl-3 and 4 of the said counter affidavit and there has been no injustice done to the petitioner.