S.P. Kurdukar, C.J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned single judge in the writ petition as well as order in the Review Application.
(2.) Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram appearing for the appellant urged that the State must show that pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Mathur etc. v. Director General of Health Services & Anr., (writ petition (Civil) No.48/93) decided on 10.6.1993 one seat in M.B.B.S. course which was taken from the backward class category was returned to the backward class category. Having not done so, the learned counsel urged that the appellant is entitled to a direction to the respondents to make one seat in M.B.B.S. course available to the appellant.
(3.) The learned Single Judge in his judgment has held that the petitioner has failed to explain the delay between July 1993 till the filing of the writ petition. Apart from this delay, Mr. Aggarwal Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondents urged that assuming one seat is available in the reserved category of backward class, still the appellant would not get admission as she happened to be lower in the merit list i.e. at Sr. No.19. The process will have to be again restarted and those who have been given admission in other courses would lay claim to the seat in M.B.B.S. course. According to Mr. Aggarwal the process would cause delay as well as uncertainty. The appellant has no chance to get admission to M.B.B.S. Course.;