Judgment

N. P. SINGH, J. - These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab for setting aside an order dated 18-12-1992 passed by the High Court on writ applications, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, Renuka Singla, and respondent No. 2 Savita Gera, directing to admit respondent No. 1 against the seat reserved for candidates belonging to backward areas which had fallen vacant as a result of withdrawal of one Sanjiv Goyal from the B.D.S. Course and to admit respondent No. 2, after creating an additional seat on compassionate ground.

2. The respondents aforesaid appeared at the Pre-Medical Test conducted in May, 1992. In the merit list of candidate belonging to backward areas, the position of respondent No. 1 was at serial No. 9 whereas that of respondent No. 2 was at serial No. 10. There is no dispute that in the application form which had been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 for the aforesaid test, no claim was made on her behalf for admission against a scat reserved for backward area. So far respondent No. 2 is concerned, in her application form she claimed admission against a seat reserved for backward areas and in support of her said claim she also enclosed a certificate as required by the prospectus issued for the year 1992-93. On basis of the merit list, respondent No. 1 was granted admission to B.A.M.S. Course against general category seats. In the meantime, the aforesaid Sanjiv Goyal, who had been admitted in the B.D.S. Course, withdrew his admission and because of that a seat became available. Respondent No. 1 filed the writ application aforesaid claiming that seat, saying that she belonged to a backward area and as such she was entitled to be admitted against that seat in B.D.S. Course. As already mentioned, in her application for admission, neither she had claimed admission, as a candidate belonging to backward area, nor she had produced any certificate in support thereof. Later she forwarded a certificate that she belonged to a backward area and made the claim even on that basis, apart from her original claim against the general category seat.

3. The High Court by the impugned order, having taken note of the fact that respondent No. 1 had not submitted any certificate along with the admission form and claimed to have forwarded the same later, which did not reach the competent authority before the prescribed date, still 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, as already mentioned above, the High Court directed that a seat be created for her admission. Having issued the direction aforesaid, the learned Judges observed that the admission of the respondent should not be treated as precedent, because direction had been issued for the admission, in view of the peculiar facts of the case.

4. The stand of the appellant-State is that the application for admission of respondent No. I cannot be considered, against a seat reserved for candidate coming from backward area, in view of the fact that no such claim was made on behalf of respondent No. 1 and it was only at a later stage, after the prescribed date, a certificate was forwarded on behalf of the said respondent, claiming admission even as a candidate belonging to the backward area.

5. The dental Council of India has appeared and filed an aflidavit, saying that the number of seats are fixed and the High Court should not have directed to create an additional seat for the admission of respondent No. 2. On behalf of Dental Council of India, it was pointed out that it has to function under the Dentists Act, 1948 and to act according to the regulations framed thereunder, which prescribe the requirement regarding medical staff, other staff, equipment and the infrastructure of a Dental College. The number of seats are fixed taking into consideration the staff position and infra-structure of a particular co