LexFAIZA CHOUDHARY versus STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2012) 7 S.C.R. 528
FAIZA CHOUDHARY
v.
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6346 of 2012)
SEPTEMBER 6, 2012
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Education - Admission - MBBS course - Government
Medical colleges in the State of Jammu & Kashmir - Seats
C under the Scheduled Tribe Gujjar Bakerwal (STGB) category
- Carry forward of unfilled seat - If permissible - Whether the
MBBS seat which fell vacant in the year 2010 could be carried
forward to the year 2012 so as to accommodate the appellant
who was in (he merit list published in the year 2010 - Held:
D On law as well as on facts, the appellant had no right to make
any claim for the vacant MBBS seat of the year 2010 in the
year 2011 or subsequent years - A medical seat has life only
in the year it falls that too only till the cut-off date fixed by
Supreme Court i.e. 30th September in the respective year -
E Carry forward principle is unknown to professional courses like
medical, engineering, dental etc. - If the authorized Board or
the Court indulges in such an exercise, in the absence of any
rule or regulation, that will be at the expense of other
meritorious candidates waiting for admission in the
F succeeding years - A seat which fell vacant in a particular year
cannot be carried forward or created in a succeeding year, in
the absence of any rule or regulation to that effect - Medical
Council of India Act - ss. 1 OA and 11 (2) - J & K Board of
Professional Entrance Examination Act, 2002 - Jammu &
G Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 - s.9.
H
In the academic year 2010, 249 seats for MBBS
courses in various Government Medical Colleges of
Jammu & Kashmir State had to be filled up. The Jammu
528
FAIZA CHOUDHARY v. STATE OF JAMMU AND
529
KASHMIR AND ANR.
& Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examination
A
[constituted under the J & K Board of Professional
Entrance Examination Act, 2002) initiated steps for
selection of meritorious candidates against the above
mentioned seats. In terms of Section 9 of the Jammu &
Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004, 50% of the total number
B
of seats had to be filled up from amongst female
candidates in both open merit and reserved category. The
Scheduled Tribe Gujjar Bakerwal ('STGB') category was
allotted 15 seats. Out of 15 seats allotted to STGB
category, 7 seats each were allotted to male and female c
candidates respectively. The Board had taken a decision
that the 15th odd seat in the year 2010 was to be allotted
to a female candidate by way of rotation as prior to that,
that seat was allotted to a male candidate. Appellant, a
female candidate, was also in the merit under STGB
D
category, but she had secured lesser marks than four
other female candidates. 'NR', the first of the said four
female candidates, had secured 121 marks. However, one
'AN', a male candidate, who had secured 146 marks,
much more than the female candidates, filed a writ
petition before the High Court raising a claim over the
E
15th odd seat stating that there could be no
discrimination between male and female candidates. In
that writ petition, 'NR' and one other candidate were also
impleaded as parties. The High Court vide an interim
order initially restrained the Board from taking any
decision regarding selection against the said seat under
F
the STGB category till 18-8-2010 , however, it ultimately
dismissed the writ petition on 8-7-2011 since by that time
'AN', the petitioner therein had got admission in the
subsequent selection process. Therefore, the said 15th G
odd seat which arose in the year 2010 remained unfilled.
The appellant thereafter submitted representation in
the year 2011 before the Board seeking admission in that
seat which fell vacant in the year 2010 under the STGB
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 7 S.C.R.
A category. Since no decision was taken on that
representation, appellant filed writ petition on 25-7-2011
seeking a direction to the Board to offer that seat to her.
A single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition
holding that the appellant was entitled to get admission
B to that unfilled MBBS of the year 2010. The single Judge
also gave direction to the Board to seek extension of the
time schedule, laid down in Mridul Dhar case* and further
directed that in the event the time schedule was not
extended, the appellant should be granted admission for
C the MBBS course in the year 2012. Aggrieved, the Board
filed LPA befExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.