Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuing a direction to the respondents to implement the Policy of Reservation in favour of the female candidates and to include the name of the female candidates securing higher marks than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the general category for admission in M.B.B.S. Course and for transferring the peti- tioner from Bachelor of Dental Surgery (B.D.S.) Course to M.B.B.S. Course.

(2). The factual gamut of the case reveals that a test was held in June, 1997 for admission in various courses in medical college and the admission had to be made as per the provisions contained in the Book-let issued by the respondents University which provided for the Policy of Reservation and Quota of Seats in favour of various categories of the students. The relevant part of the said Policy was contained in Clause (2)(f), which reads as under :–

``25% of the seats excluding the seats reserved under Sub- Clauses (a) to (e) above, are reserved for girls candidates.

(3). Sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Clause 2 provided reservation for other candida- tes, i.e., natural-born candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, sons and daughters of Defence Personnel, nomination under the Central Pool, seats for being filled-up by All India Entrance Examination to be conducted by an agency of Government of India, etc., with which we are concerned here. Petitioner was one of the candidates who appeared for the examination. The result was declared on 12.8.97. As the petitioner had been shown much below in the merit list, she has been given the B.D.S. Course and the last candidate who had been selected in M.B.B.S. Course in general category, had secured 858 marks. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Policy of Reservation has not been implemented as required under the law and if all the female candidates, who had secu- red more marks than 858, are admitted in M.B.B.S. Course in general category, he other female candidates securing lesser marks must have been given admission in the reserved category.

(4). Mr. J.P. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in Miss Charu Agrawal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1); and Ranu Vyas vs. University of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), wherein reliance has been placed upon a large number of judgments, particularly Kumari Shikha Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (3); Asif Hamid vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir (4), and came to the conclusion that the object of reservation does not appear to be that even when the candidates of the reserved category are meritorious over the candidates of general category, they can be refused admission. Similarly, if meritorious candidates of certain reserved categories are available over the candidates of general category then they should be considered in general category and not in reserved category and it was held that first the general category seats have to be filled-up from the Common List and the remaining seats are to be offered to the reserved category candidates after scrutinising the record of the candidates belong- ing to reserved categories, excluding those candidates of reserved category who secured more marks than the marks secured by the last selected candidate in general category. Mr. S.G. Ojha and Mr. J.M. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents, did not dispute the proposition of law that if reserve category candidates secure higher marks and can be admitted in general category, such candida- tes be admitted in general category, and then the reserved seats should be filled-up from the remaining candidates belonging to the reserved categories. Thus, there is a substance in these arguments of Shri Joshi that if the female candidates, who had secured more marks than the last selected candidate in the general category, had been considered and admitted in general category, the candidates like petitioner ought to have be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document