OWAIS MEHMOOD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOLLOWING reliefs are claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition: -

(2.) THE case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner alongwith other family members migrated from Salamabad Tehsil Uri District Baramulla (Kashmir) to Jammu in the year 1990 after his father was killed in a terrorist attack on 30.07.1990. The petitioner alongwith other family members was registered as migrant as revealed by the migration certificate dated 04.06.2012. Petitioner, being qualified as 10+2, responded to Advertisement Notification No. 55 -BOPEE dated 07.09.2012 for selection in the Central Pool M.B.B.S four seats in different Colleges outside the State for the year 2012 -13. The applications were invited from the candidates belonging to following categories: -

(3.) THE petitioner claims to have complied with all the requirements. He claims to have obtained 128 marks in the merit. According to petitioner, respondents did not issue the selection list. His uncle Syed Ishtaq Mehmood applied under RTI for seeking information regarding selection of candidates. The information furnished on 15.10.2012 revealed that the petitioner was shown at S.No.2 under Category -III but candidates figuring at S.Nos. 1 and 3 had been selected. It was further revealed that the benefit against priority - I, II and priority III categories was restricted only to the wards of civilian victims of terrorism and in the event of such benefit having been availed in respect of one ward, 2nd and 3rd was not eligible to be selected against these reserved seats. It is claimed that there is no provision under Terrorism Act which prevents a candidate from getting benefit of the State Quota of M.B.B.S against the seats reserved for candidates belonging to the State in Central Pool. Petitioner's case is that except three categories and the conditions laid down in Advertisement Notification No. 55 -BOPEE dated 07.09.2012, no guidelines of Health and Family Welfare Ministry have been incorporated in the aforesaid notification and in regard to seats of M.B.B.S reserved for Ministry of Home Affairs, a separate notification No. 42 -BOPEE dated 27.07.2012 has been issued inviting applications for nomination/selection in the Central Pool. Petitioner claims that despite being more meritorious, his name has been deleted from the list of selected candidates while he was entitled to be selected under State Quota reserved for J&K State in outside Colleges in terms of Advertisement Notification No. 55 -BOPEE dated 07.09.2012. Petitioner also claims that his case is covered under Category -III. Thus, the petitioner bases his claim against the State Quota in Central Pool M.M.B.S four seats in different Colleges outside the State. Further case of the petitioner is that State Government makes the nomination under State Quota while against the Quota of Home Ministry it is the Home Minister who has to make the nomination. The two categories, according to petitioner, are different. Thus, the petitioner claims to be duly selected on the basis of merit at S.No.2 under Category -III and assails the inclusion of private respondent No. 5 who is less meritorious.