- (1.) This order will dispose of a bunch of six writ petitions Nos. 10053, 11136, 12075, 12208, 12702 and 13619 of 1994 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since the main arguments were addressed in CWP 10053 of 1994, facts are being taken from that case.
(2.) The short but interesting question of law that arises for determination in these petitions is whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category who has secured more marks in the competition that some of the General category candidates should be admitted against a reserved seat or should he be given a seat in the general category.
(3.) Admissions to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S. (Ayurvedscharya) course for the academic session 1994-95 in all the three State Medical Colleges, two State Dental Colleges and Government Ayurvedic College, Patiala were made by holding a competitive entrance examination (for short, PMT). This entrance examination was conducted by the Punjabi University, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the University) on behalf of the Government of Punjab As per the prospectus issued by the University, the total number of seats in the Medical/Dental/Ayurvedic Colleges were as under:- (i) Medical College, Patiala 150 seats. (ii) Medical College, Amritsar 150 seats. (iii) Guru Gobind Singh Medical College, Faridkot 50 seats. (iv) Dental College, Amritsar 40 seats. (v) Dental College, Patiala 40 seats. (vi) Ayurvedic College, Patiala 30 seats. Fifteen per cent of the total seats were to be filled up on all India basis through a test to be conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. Some of the remaining seats (after 15 per cent CBSE quota) were reserved for various categories of candidates and we are concerned here only with the following three categories for whom 2 per cent of the total seats in each of the categories were reserved: (1) Children/grand-children of political sufferers; (2) Sportsmen/sportswomen; (3) (i) Children/widows of defence personnel who are killed or disabled to the extent of 50% or more in war; (ii) Children of the serving/ex-servicemen; (iii) Wards of gallantry awardeers. Petitioners 1 to 4 fall in the category of children/grand-children of political sufferers for whom seats are reserved, petitioner 5 applied for the reserved seat for sportsmen/sportswomen whereas petitioner 6 belongs to the category of children of serving/ex-servicemen. Petitioners who were eligible for admission to the various courses submitted their application forms to the University and took the PMT examination for admission against the aforesaid reserved categories. They were successful in the examination in as much as they obtained more than the minimum marks required but have not been given admission as they were lower in merit than those who have been admitted in those categories. Since the question posed before us is purely legal, we need not refer to the details of marks obtained by different categories of candidates in the PMT examination. Suffice it to say, that it is common case of the parties that some of the candidates who have been admitted against the reserved seats have secured more marks in the PMT examination than the candidates admitted in the general category/unreserved category. The grievance of the petitioners is that the candidates belonging to the reserved categories who have been selected and have obtained more marks than the candidates in the unreserved categories should be admitted against the seats meant for the unreserved candidates. According to the petitioners if this was done, then some of the candidates admitted against the reserved seats would have been given admission against the open seats and the seats meant for the reserved categories would become vacant and the petitioners would stand a chance for being admitted against those seats.;