LAWS(HPH)-2006-6-9

ASEEM CHAUDHARY Vs. H.P. UNIVERSITY

Decided On June 01, 2006
Aseem Chaudhary Appellant
V/S
H.P. UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the medium of this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner wants this Court to issue a mandamus to the respondents to create a specific category of candidates for admission in the MBBS course. To be precise, the petitioner's grievance is that whereas in the admissions for the Sessions 2004-05 and 2005- 06, apart from the category of NRI candidates, there was another category of "NRI sponsored candidates", in the Prospectus issued for the Session 2006-07, Whether Reporters of the Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? the category of "NRI sponsored candidates" has been obliterated.

(2.) WE are of the considered opinion that in so far as the issue of categorizing the candidates for admissions to educational Institutions, including the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges is concerned, it is for the State Government as well as the State Institutions, including the Universities to prescribe different categories of candidates as also their respective quotas. Of course, the entire process of categorization of candidates as well as their respective quotas has to be rational as well as linked to equitable basis and there has to be some nexus of actual categorization of candidates with the object sought to be achieved with respect to the creation of categories. It is not for this Court to issue any direction to the respondents in the exercise of this Court's extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to create any category, or any further or additional categories. This Court's jurisdiction of course can always be invoked by aggrieved person(s) if it is ever felt that in the matter of creation of categories or allocation of respective quotas against categories, the State has acted in an arbitrary manner, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such is not the case presently before us.

(3.) THIS petition is totally devoid of any merit and is dismissed in limine. CMP No. 674 of 2006. Dismissed.