LexPREETI MITTAL ETC. ETC. versus GAGANJOT KAUR SAIRA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B PREETI MITTAL ETC. ETC. v. GAGANJOT KAUR SAIRA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. APRIL 5, 1999 [K. VENKATASWAMI AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.] 1· Education : , Admission to MBBS Course-Chandigarh Pool and All India Poo/- C Notification dated 19.9.1998-85% seats kept open for Chandigarh Pool and remaining 15% seats reserved for candidates from All India Pao/- Admission Committee's decision to fill up Chandigarh Pool first and thereafter All India Pool-On challenge, High Court holding that procedure adopted not in accordance with the Instructions/Prospectus-On appeal, held, neither D the Notification nor the prospectus contain any indication for filling up All India Pool first and thereafter Chandigarh Pool-Procedure adopted by Admission Committee fair and reasonable as it made the selection meaning/U/- HigfJ Court not justified in interfering with the matter. Admission to MBBS Course-Seat reserved for Scheduled Caste E candidate from All India Pool-Non-availability of candidqte from the said Pool-Held, the reserved seat must go to Scheduled caste candidate from Chandigarh Pool-High Court erred in directing the seat to be given to general category candidate from All India Pool. In Government Medical College, Chandigarh for MBBS Course, 85% F seats were kept open for Chandigarh Pool and remaining 15% seats were reserved for Students from All India quota. Notification dated 19.9.1998 was issued by the College administration for filling up 15% seats from All India quota. Clause (d) of the said notification stated that a candidate clearing in All India Pool though belonging to Chandigarh, shall have the right to be G considered and admitted in All India Pool. Similar clauses were also found in the prospectus of the College. The respondents challenged the select list on the ground that the procedure adopted by the administration by filling up 85% of Chandigarh Pool first and subsequently filling up of remaining 15% All India Pool was against the spirit of the Notification and clarification in the prospectus. High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the H procedure adopted by the Administration .was not in accordance with the 420 + - + PREETI MITT AL v. G.K. SAIRA 421 instructions/prospectus. The High Court also set aside the selection of A scheduled caste candidate from Chandigarh Pool and directed that the seat should be given to general category candidate from All India Pool. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the present appeals are preferred. Allowing the appeal, this Court B HELD : 1. Neither the notification nor the prospectus issued frr admission to MBBS Course for the session 1998-99 did contain any indication that the seats for All India Pool would be filled up first and thereafter the seats reserved for Chandigarh Pool would be filled up. This necessitated the Admission Committee to invoke clause 1 of the 'overriding conditions' in the C prospectus. The High Court was, therefore, not right in holding that there was no room for the Admission Committee to invoke clause 1 of the 'overriding conditions'. (426-E-F; 427-E] 2. The manner in which the seats were filled up by the Chandigarh Administration is quite in accordance with the view expressed by this Court D in Minoo Noazer Kavarana. Thus the High Court was not justified in interfering with the decision of the Chandigarh Administration in the matter of filling up of seats for the MBBS course. (428-C-; 429-A-B] *State of Maharashtra v. Minoo Noazer Kavarana & Ors. etc., (1989] 2 sec 626, relied on. Neetika Bansal v. Chandigarh Admn. & Ors., CWP No. 11653/98 decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court, held inapplicable. 3. The Admission Committee decided to fill up Chandigarh Pool first and thereafter to fill up the All India Pool, for the reason that as such a course will benefit the All India Pool candidates and the Chandigarh Pool· candidates were eligible to be considered for both Pools and they were in a large number. It was also considered' that the meritorious candidates of E F G Chandigarh Pool were accommodated in the 43 seats set apart for Union Territory and the Chandigarh students did not encroach upon the seats.set apart from the All India Pool for which also they (Chandigarh Pool) were eligible to be considered. Thus the reasons for filling up Chandigarh Pool first appears to be fair and reasonable for it made the selection of candidates from All India Pool meaningful. The ob
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.