SHABNAM LONE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Puja Dullooâ„¢s case (SLP(C) Nos. 4208 -09 of 1993) the Honâ„¢ble Supreme court had impressed upon the state Government to regulate the nomination of candidates for MBBS/BDS courses to Colleges outside the state with rectitude and propriety to eliminate any room for grievance " that high and mighty walk away with what was intended for fit and deserving". The advice seems to have fallen on deaf ears or else the state appears disinterested to learn from the past experience. This becomes evident from the facts of the present case which is one of the many cases coming up before the court highlighting how merit is being sacrificed at the altar of de -merit.

(2.) BY communication dated 1.9.1993, the central Government placed 31 seats in the MBBS/BDS courses for 1993 -94 session at the disposal of the state. Pursuant thereto notification dated 22.11.1993 was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates in the following categories: i) CATEGORY -I Children of families who have been victims of terrorism and where a direct member of the family have lost his life by an act of terrorism. ii) CATEGORY -II Children of persons who were officially engaged in encountering terrorism in hazardous circumstances or considered high on the list of the terrorists; iii) CATEGORY -III Children of persons who were forced to abandon their profession or business or place of abode in Kashmir valley due to conditions of insecurity created by terrorism." A committee comprising three Commissioner -Cum -Secretaries to Government, was constituted to consider the applications of candidates and to submit its recommendations. The selection was to be made in accordance with the objective merit of the competing candidates.

(3.) PETITIONER â„¢s case is that she applied laying claim to category -II on the plea that her father had worked as law Secretary from 1990 till November, 1993 under hazardous circumstances and was thus officially engaged in encountering terrorism. Her case was considered by the High ranking committee set up by the Government which had found her entitled in Category -II, and had/recommended her to be nominated and placed her at S. No. 3 of the merit list in the relevant category. But even so she was not nominated and instead respondent No. 5 who did not belong to Category -II was selected inspite of his inferior merit. She claims to have obtained 120 marks in the entrance examination as against 114 marks secured by respondent No. 5 It is also submitted that her entitlement to category -II is not open to question and stands confirmed by a -Division bench Judgment of this court in Pankaj Gandotraâ„¢s case.