Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 1189
1998(9) Supreme 210
Supreme Court of India
(From Himachal Pradesh High Court)
K. Venkataswami and M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Nishant Puri -Appellant
verus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6037 of 1998
(Arising out SLP (C) No. 1890 of 1998)
Decided on 2-12-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : J.D. Jain, Sr. Advocate, M.R. Vig, Balbir Singh Gupta, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 3 : A.V. Palli, Atual Sharma, Ms. Rekha Palli, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 4 : Himinder Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1: Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate.
Important point
A State Government employee on deputation (at the request of the employee on health ground) to a department of the Central Government cannot be considered as a ‘serving Central Government employee’ within the meaning of the eligibility clause as provided by Himachal Pradesh University in combined prospectus for admission for Medical Courses.
Headnote:Education-Medical course admission-Himachal Pradesh Institutions-Eligibility-Condition out of Middle, Matric, 10+2 examination candidate must have passed at least two examinations from schools situated in Himachal Pradesh-Wards of serving Central Government employees exempted-Appellant’s mother a Himachal Pradesh Government volition to department of Central Government outside Himachal Pradesh-Whether she could be treated as serving Central Government employee within eligibility clause as provided by Himachal Pradesh University-Held: No-Appellant not having passed two examinations stated above from schools situated within Himachal Pradesh not qualified for admission.
Held : The purpose behind the clause relating to eligibility appears to be that bona fide Himachali students should be given preference over others. In achieving the above object, care has been taken to protect those students whose parents were obliged to move out of Himachal State on account of exigencies of service, by reason of which the children also moved out of State. In the case on hand, it is an admitted fact that the mother of the appellant though a State Government employee went on deputation on her own request on health ground to work as an employee of the Central Government. In view of the fact that she has been allowed to continue on deputation for nearly 10 years and is still maintaining her lien with the State Government, can it be said that she is a Central Government employee as contemplated in Clause (iii) of the eligibility clause. We are of the view that such an interpretation would go against the spirit of the eligibility clause provided in the Prospectus. (Para 11)
Order
Special leave granted.
2. Heard counsel for the parties.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a State Government employee lent on deputation (at the request of the State Government employee on health ground) to a department of the Central Government can be considered as a ‘serving Central Government employee’ within the meaning of the eligibility clause as provided by Himachal Pradesh University in a combined prospectus for admission for M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.A.M.S. courses.
4. The relevant clauses in the Prospectus read as follows :-
“Definition of bona fide residents of Himachal Pradesh
A bona fide Himachali is a person who has permanent home in Himachal Pradesh and includes a person who has been residing in Himachal Pradesh for a period not less than 15 years or a person who has permanent home in Himachal Pradesh but on account of his occupation he is living outside Himachal Pradesh.”
Eligibility -
“(i) Candidates who have to compete for admission to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla (M.B.B.S.), Dr. Rajendra Prasad Govt. Medical College Kangra, Himachal Pradesh Government Dental College and Hospital Shimal (B.D.S.), OR Free seats available in various Private Dental Colleges and Medical Colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh and Rajiv Gandhi Government Ayurvedic College, Paprola should have passed atleast two of the following examinations from the recognised Schools or Colleges affiliated to ICSE/CBSE and HP Board of School Education or equivalent Boards/university established by law in India.
(a) Middle or Equivalent,
(b) Matric or Equivalent,
(c) 10+2 or Equivalent,
(ii) The bona fide Himachali students who are admitted to Navodaya Schools situated in Himachal Pradesh and who pass Matric or +2 examination under the exchange programme from other Navodaya Schools in the Country shall also be eligibile for admission to the above courses.
(iii) The Wards of Defence personnels/ serving Central Government employees who are bona fide Himachalis are also exempted from the condition of passing two classes from the State of Himachal Pradesh.”
5. Stated briefly, the relevant facts of the case are as under -
The appellant herein submitted his application for combined entrance test for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course for the year 1997-98. The third respondent herein after a perusal of the appellant’s application informed him that he was not eligible for submitted the application inasmuch as he had not passed two out of three examinations mentioned in the eligibility clause from the school situated in Himachal Pradesh. In fact, the appellant’s mother, a Himachal Pradesh State Government employee, requested for sending her on deputation to Chandigarh Union Territory on health ground. Accordingly, she was sent on deputation to Chandigardh Education Department since 21.12.1988. Alongwith his mother, the appellant also moved to Chandigarh and pursued his studies there since 1988. Therefore, he could not satisfy the eligibility requirement as mentioned above. Though the appellant initially claimed exemption under the category that he is the son of a defence personnel, that was not pursued in view of the fact that his father was not a bona fide Himachali. The alternative claim of the appellant was that his mother is a Himachal Pradesh State Government employee and she having been sent on deputation to work at Chandigarh Education Department, must be treated as a ‘serving Central Government employee’. In that case exemption contemplated under Clause (iii) of the eligibility clause would come to his rescue. This was not accepted by the respondents. Though, on merits he was entitled to get admission, he was denied admission for lack of eligibility for admission.
6. Aggrieved by the denial of admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course, 1977, the appellant moved the High Court for appropriate writ to enable him to pursue the first year M.B.B.S. course.
7. A Division Benc
