LexSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. versus RENUKA SINGLA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. v. RENUKA SINGLA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 26, 1993 B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] Education-Admission to Professional Course-Dentists Act, 1948- Sections 10~ and JOB (3)--Admission-B.D.S. Course-Direction of High Court to admit a candidate against reserved seat on compassionate ground- C Admission of another candidate directed after creating additional seat-Viola- tive of Sections JOA and JOB (3}-Directions set aside. For admission to B.D.S. Course, respondents appeared at the Pre- Medical Test. In the merit list of Students belonging to backward areas, the position of respondent no. 1 was at serial no. 9 whereas that of D respondent no. 2 was at serial no. 10. In the admission form respondent No. 1 had made no claim for admission against a a seat reserved for backward areas. On the basis of the merit list, respondent No. 1 was granted admission to B.A.M.S. Course against general category seats. In the meantime because of withdrawal of a candidate, one seat fell vacant in E the B.D.S. Course, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ application claiming that seat, saying that she belonged to a backward area. The High Court took note of the fact that respondent no. 1.had not submitted any certificate alongwith the admission from but claimed to have forwarded the same later, which did not reach the competent F authority before the prescribed date. However, it directed that respondent No. 1 be admitted against the said seat, which had become vacant, on "compassionate ground", treating her to be belonging to the backward area. In respect of respondent no. 2, the High Court directed that a seat be created for her admission. G In these appeals filed by the State, it is submitted that the applica· tion for admission of respondent no. 1 cannot be considered against a seat reserved for candidates coming from backward area, in view of the fact that no such claim was made and it was only at a latter stage, that a certificate was forwarded. It was also stated that the number of seats are H fixed taking into consideration the staff position and infrastructure of a 866 - ·,, STATEv. R.SINGLA 867 college and the High Court ought not have directed to creation of an A additional seat for the admission of respondent no. 2. It was pointed out that the Dental Council of India has to function under the Dentists Act and to act according to the regulations framed thereunder. Allowing the appeals, this Court Held : 1.1 For technical education, including medical education, taking into consideration the infra-structure, equipment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India B or Dental Council of India. The High Court cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the institution and the number of admissions, on C "compassionate ground". The High Court should be conscious of the fact that in this process they are affecting the education of the students who have already been admitted, against the fixed seats after very tough com- petitive examination. There does not appear to be any justification on the part of the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respon- dent no. 1 on "compassionate ground" and to issue a fiat to create an D addition seat which amounts to a direction to violate Section 10 A and Section 10 B (3) of the Dentists Act. (870-E-GJ 1.2 In the instant case, the direction given to admit respondent no. 1 against the one vacant seat, is set aside, since against that seat respondent no. 2 has a better claim, because her application was in proper form alongwith proper certificate that she belonged to a backward area. She should be admitted against the seat which had fallen vacant due to withdrawal of the admission. If any seat in B.A.M.S. Course is available, respondent no. 1 should be considered for admission against that. (870-H, 87l·A·CJ CIVIL AP~ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3363- 3364 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.92 of the Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. Nos. 15863 & 16329 of 1992. Ranbir Singh Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Appellants. Rajni Atma Ram and K. Mahajan for the Respondent No. 2. R.L. Kohli, Ms. S. Bagga, Aman, Vivek and Prem Malohtra for the E F G Respondents Nos. 1. & 3. H 868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R .. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B N.P. SINGH, J. These appeals have been filed on behalf of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.