RATTAN SINGH Vs. HONBLE CHIEF MINISTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner selected for M. B. B. S. Course at the Government Medical College, Jammu, for the session 1977 -78 under the category (Children of Freedom fighters). The petitioner claims selection to the M.B.B.S. Course on the basis of the Government Order No. 1898 -GD of 1973 dated 9th July, 1973, prescribing the procedure to be adopted for admission to the technical institutions. According to that order, the Government earmarked seats in the Medical colleges. Under the category

(2.) -b "Children of Freedom fighters" have been allotted 7% seats. The case of the petitioner is that his father was a freedom fighter who participated in the quit India movement of 1942; that in response to the Notification issued by the Principal Medical College, Jammu No. JMC/FAC/OOL/Adm/ 77 -78/870 dated 30th May, 1977 inviting applications for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Medical College, Jammu, the petitioner applied for his being selected and also produced at a later stage a certificate from the District Magistrate, evidencing the fact that his father was a freedom fighter. The petitioner was eligible in all respects for being selected. He appeared before the Selection Committee which was headed by respondent No: 2. The Committee was assisted by Dr. J. D. Sharma, Professor and Head of the department of Pharmacology, Medical College, Jammu. The certificate of his being the son of freedom fighter was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Doda, on 30 -7 -1977. He could not, however, produce the certificate at the time of interview before the Selection Committee, but he produced the same before respondent No: 3 on 2 -8 -1977 and was directed to proceed to Srinagar and produce it before respondent No: 4. The petitioner produced the original certificate before respondent No: 4 at Srinagar on 4 -8 -1977, but inspite of all this, the petitioner was not selected. The list of the successful candidates as selected by the Selection Committee was submitted to the Chief Minister for his approval. It is averred that the petitioners case was also forwarded to respondent No: 1 but respondent No: 1 before whom the petitioners case was presented, remarked that the fact that the petitioners father had participated in the freedom struggle was not within his knowledge and the petitioner could not claim to be a son of a freedom fighter. In this way, the petitioner was ignored and the certificate issued by the District Magistrate was not honoured. The action of the Selection Committee in referring the case of the petitioner to respondent No: 1 was not warranted by the procedure laid down for the selection. No son of a freedom fighter has so far been selected. Because of the Notification issued by the Government an obligation was cast on the selection Committee and also on the Government to allot seats in the Government Medical College, Jammu to the petitioner son of a freedom fighter in accordance with the quota prescribed in the notification. 2. A notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. The additional Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the respondents. Shri N. S. Pathania Principal Medical College, Jammu and Shri J.D. Sharma, Professor and Head of department of Pharmacology, have filed their respective reply affidavits. Shri Pathania has affirmed that according to the admission notice, candidates were required to attach all the requisite certificates with the application form. The petitioner who claimed to be the son of a freedom fighter did not attach the requisite certificate with his admission form. The petitioner did not, therefore, fulfill the requirements of admission notice and as such has no right to file the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner cannot enforce a concession granted on the basis of Government Order relied upon by him in a court of law. The petition is not maintainable as no legal, statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner has been violated. Shri J. D. Sharma has in his reply affidavit deposed that the allegation that the Chief Minister remarked that the petitioners fathers participation in freedom struggle was not in his knowledge and therefore, the petitioner could not claim to be the son of a freedom fighter was absolutely mis -conceived and the same has been denied in the affidavit. He has further denied that such remarks were made and communicated to the petitioner by Shri Ghulm Ahmed, Secretary to the Chief Minister and Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister. During the course of arguments Shri Anil Dev Singh, Addl. Advocate General, has filed two separate affidavits of Shri Ghulam Ahmed, Secretary to the Chief Minister and of Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister, in which they have categorically denied that any information was given by them to the petitioner that the Chief Minister had remarked that the petitioners fathers participation in the freedom struggle was not in the knowledge of the Chief Minister and so the petitioner could not claim to be the son of a freedom fighter. It is further stated in the affidavit that the alleged words attributed to the Chief Minister were never spoken by him within their knowledge or hearing.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.