V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) MISS Neeraj, a minor through her guardian seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak to admit her in M.B.B.S. Ist Professional Course in the category of Socially, Educationally and Economically Weaker Section of the Society. (Sic) seats were reserved out of which three were earmarked for girl students.
(2.) I do not propose to go into the detailed facts of this case as after hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that this matter requires to be adjudicated by a larger bench. However, it is necessary to mention that petitioner appeared in the Entrance Test on July 18, 1993. She had applied in two reserved categories namely (i) Backward Class category and (ii) Socially, Educationally and Economically Weaker Section. She could not find admission in the Backward Class category as her merit in the said category was not commensurate to the seats reserved therein. However, admittedly she was in merit in the reserved category of SEW. She was not given admission in the reserved category of SEW for the simple reason that she did not make merit for admission in the Backward Class category under which too she had applied.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that it is permissible for a student to apply into reserved categories if actually he answers the eligibility criteria of two reserved categories and simply if the said student is unable to find admission on merit in one category, it cannot not be said that his case in the other reserved category to be considerable substance in the contention of learned counsel. Mr. Surjewala has also relied upon Articles 14(4) as also 46 of the Constitution of India and the judgment of Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, 1993(1) SCT 448 (SC) : AIR 1993 SC 477 to contend that the right of a member of Socially, Educationally and Economically Weaker Section is preserved under the Constitution and non -admission of a candidate on the ground as projected above, would violate the said right. Mr. Malik, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand relied upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 13209 of 1993 decided on October 22, 1993. The order passed in the aforesaid writ petition reads thus : - "The petitioner being a backward class, does not apparently fall under category 'B' of the Chapter -IV of the Prospectus. No case for interference has been made out. Dismissed in limine. The order, reproduced above, would thus manifest that the merits of the case were not gone into and the points projected by learned counsel for the petitioner were neither discussed nor any final decision was rendered. However, the propriety of the case demands that this case should be referred to a larger bench. Accordingly it is ordered that the papers of this case be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench. ;