ANUPAMMA SWARANKAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondents to implement the Policy of Reservation in favour of the female candidates and to include the name of the female candidates securing higher marks than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the general category for admission in M. B. B. S. Course and for transferring the peti- tioner from Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B. D. S.) Course to M. B. B. S. Course.

(2.) THE factual gamut of the case reveals that a test was held in June, 1997 for admission in various courses in medical college and the admission had to be made as per the provisions contained in the Book-let issued by the respondents University which provided for the Policy of Reservation and Quota of Seats in favour of various categories of the students. THE relevant part of the said Policy was contained in Clause (2) (f), which reads as under :- "25% of the seats excluding the seats reserved under Sub- Clauses (a) to (e) above, are reserved for girls candidates. "

(3.) THE same view has been expressed by the Apex Court in Ajay Hasiya vs. Khalid Majid Sohrawandi (6); and Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh vs. Sanjay Gulati & Ors. In Thappter Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala vs. Abhinav Taneja & Ors. (8), the Apex Court considered a case where the High Court had issued directions to admit the students who had approached the writ Court, ignoring the merit of the students who had not approached the Court. THE Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- "the High Court should have directed only two students to be admitted and that too on merit. admittedly, there were more meritorious students than the respondents, waiting in queue. THE High Court, thus, travelled beyond its jurisdiction and not only directed more stu- dents then the institute could absorb but, also, students who were less meritorious, to be admitted. No reasons whatsoever have been given by the High Court for exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction so per-encptorily which has resulted in injustice, both to the appellant-institution as well as to the students who stood higher in merit than all most all the respondent-students. We refrain from making any further comment on the impugned judgment. "