EKJOT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the Note appended with Clause 15(A)(i) of the notification dated 05.06.2013 of Part II of the prospectus wherein it has been observed that reservations for categories except SC category would be calculated on the seats left out after deduction of SC Quota seats and prayed for a direction to the respondents to calculate 1% seats reserved for Sports Category on total number of seats and also made a prayer that she be admitted on the basis of her last year score where she had secured 4th position in the merit list of Sports Category for admission in the MBBS Course for the academic session 2013-14. As per the case set up by the petitioner, total 350 seats were advertised by the respondent-University for 3 Government Medical Colleges in the State of Punjab, out of which 15% seats were to be filled in on the basis of All India Quota and remaining 85% seats, i.e. 297.5 seats, were to be filled in from amongst the Punjab quota. In total 297.5 number of seats, there are reservations for Scheduled castes, Backward Class, Backward Area/Border Area, Physically handicapped, Sports Person, Wards of Terrorist affected persons.

(2.) The petitioner, claiming herself to be a sports person, falling in the Sports Category, applied in the said category for the academic session 2012-13. She appeared in the written examination conducted by the University and secured 4th rank last year, in the Sports Category. According to the petitioner, the candidate whose name figured at Sr. No. 1 in the merit list did not claim seat and, thus there were 3 candidates in the fray for admission in the MBBS Course last year, but due to wrong calculation of 1% seats, only 2 students were offered admission in the Sports Category, whereas 1% reserved number of seats out of 297.5 comes to almost 3 seats. It is, thus, submitted that the Note, referred to above, has already been interpreted by this Court in the case of Gurkaran Singh v. State of Punjab and others,' LPA No. 1749 of 2012, decided on 10.12.2012, and the petitioner also deserves the same benefit.

(3.) After notice, reply has been filed by the respondent-University in which as per distribution of seats for the academic session 2012-13, there were 2 seats in the Sports Category which have already been filled up. The petitioner was at Sr. No. 4 in the merit list, which she herself has admitted in the petition and even if the candidates at Sr. No. 1 did not join, the admissions have been given to Ketki Kaushal and Harmanpreet Kaur who were above in the merit list than the petitioner. 'It is also alleged that the petitioner has already taken NEET-UG-2013 exam in which she could not qualify in the merit list, therefore, she is approaching this Court for getting admission on the basis of her result of 2012. It is also submitted that there is no quarrel with the ratio of law laid down in LPA No. 1749 of 2012, but the petitioner cannot be given admission in the year 2013 on the basis of her merit of the year 2012 because in Gurkaran Singh's case , writ petition was filed on 30.07.2012 which was decided on 29.09.2012. The LPA was filed in October/November 2012 which was decided on 10.12.2012. Since the decision was taken in the LPA in mid-stream, it was ordered by the Appellate Court that the admission to the said petitioner shall be given in the next session.