PREETI MANJHI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents is seeking time to file counter-affidavit. Neither he is having old policy in his hand nor a new policy for giving admission in Post Graduate Study of Medical Faculty. He is relying upon a private publication one Shri Ram Chandra Lal with a Yellow Cover and a Read Heading and submits that the High Court has already taken a decision about admission policy in a Post Graduate Medicine Course. Learned Counsel appearing for the State tries to submit everything vehemently, but, nothing with any certainly. Neither he is ready with law point nor with facts nor with any judgment.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents further submits that a copy of the writ petition was given to the Office of the Advocate General on 21st April, 2009, but, since then the authorities of the State are taking time and on 4th May, 2009 I had issued a detailed order on that day. Thereafter no affidavit has been filed. The matter was adjourned because learned Counsel appealing for the State was not ready. Thereafter matter was again fixed and heard on 11th May, 2009. Again a small order was passed and the matter was adjourned because learned Counsel for the State was seeking time to get further instruction. Again thereafter the matter was kept on 22nd May, 2009 and again time is sought for by the learned Counsel appearing for the State and the matter was adjourned for today. The matter of admission in the Post-Graduation Study in a Medical faculty ought to have been taken seriously by the concerned officers of the State. It appears that there is a totally lethargic approach on the part of the officers of the Respondent-State in not giving proper material or instructions to the learned Counsel for the State nor even affidavit is ready by now, despite, on several occasions time was given and the matter was adjourned. Today also learned Counsel appearing for the State is having no material read}' for argument, namely old policy, nor new policy nor the judgement of the High Court upon which he is relying on, but, he admits that there is a reservation for 26% of the seats in a Post Graduation Study in a Medical Faculty.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts and looking to the Annexure-4 to the memo of petition originally, there were 75 total seats in Post Graduate study in medical faculty and looking to the percentage of the reservation for Scheduled Tribe Students there is a 26% reservation and, therefore, total seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes comes to twenty and further looking to reshuffled Annexure-7 now there are only 13 seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The reason for change or reshuffling, in reserved quota is under challenge. Learned Counsel for the State has miserably failed to point out any thing to this Court as stated here-in-above. Even no affidavit has been filed and, therefore, I hereby, direct the respondents to keep seven seats vacant in Post Graduate Medical Faculty, till the next date of hearing and I further direct Respondent No. 6 to remain personally present or to file affidavit on or before the next date of hearing. If no affidavit is filed, Respondent No. 6 is directed to remain personally present on next date of hearing at 10:30 a.m.