Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Ms. Mamta Rana - Petitioner
Vs
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1822 of 2012
Decided on: 14.09.2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate, present for the petitioner
Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, present for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Geeta Parihar, Advocate, present for respondent No. 3.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of admission to a physically handicapped candidate, who also belongs to a reserved category, is a violation of the law. The court emphasized the need for a single merit list for admission of physically handicapped candidates.
Headnote:
Reservation - Admission in M.B.B.S. course - Uttarakhand Pre Medical Test 2012 - Disability Act, 1995, Section 39 - The court held that the denial of a handicapped seat to the petitioner, who is a handicap by applying the principle of reservation, against the petitioner who also belongs to a reserved category of Scheduled Tribe, is a wholly wrong and inappropriate approach on the part of the respondents. The court also emphasized the need for preparing one merit list alone and granting admission to physically handicapped candidates who were eligible for such reservation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Scheduled Tribe candidate with a 45% disability, sought admission to M.B.B.S. course under the physically challenged category. Despite obtaining higher marks than another candidate admitted under the same category, the petitioner was denied admission due to her Scheduled Tribe status.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the respondent's denial of a handicapped seat to the petitioner to be a violation of the law and emphasized the need for a single merit list for admission of physically handicapped candidates.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of admission to the petitioner under the physically challenged category due to her Scheduled Tribe status and the respondent's failure to prepare a single merit list for admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of a handicapped seat to the petitioner, who also belongs to a reserved category of Scheduled Tribe, is a wholly wrong and inappropriate approach. The court emphasized the need for preparing one merit list alone and granting admission to physically handicapped candidates who were eligible for such reservation.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and a mandamus was issued to the respondents to give admission to the petitioner under the physically handicapped category. The court directed that the candidate who had already been admitted should not be disturbed, and other physically handicapped candidates with higher marks should be admitted first.
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is a candidate for admission in M.B.B.S. course in two Government Colleges, which are in the State of Uttarakhand, namely, Dr. Sushila Tiwari Medical College, Haldwani and Veer Chandra Singh Garhwali Government Medical College, Srinagar. The exam for these colleges was conducted by Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture & Technology Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar, and the examination is known as Uttarakhand Pre Medical Test 2012 (hereinafter referred to as UPMT 2012).
2. The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, namely, “Tharu”, which is notified as such in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner is also a permanent resident of Uttarakhand. Moreover, the petitioner is also a physically challenged candidate, having disability of 45%. A certificate for which has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, which is not in dispute.
3. In the recent examination for M.B.B.S. course conducted by respondent No. 3, there was a horizontal reservation of 3% for physically challenged candidates. The total number of seats for M.B.B.S. course were 170 out of which 4 were reserved for the physically challenged category. In the said examination, the petitioner procured 103 marks out of 200 marks. The cut off marks required for eligibility for the M.B.B.S. course is 50% for the General category and 40% for the reserved category candidates. The petitioner marks were much more than the minimum qualified marks. However, the petitioner could not get admission in the reserved quota of Scheduled Tribes, therefore, she claimed reservation under the physically challenged category for which 4 seats were reserved. The contention of the petitioner is that while giving reservation to the physically challenged category the respondents though granted admission to one Imran Alam under the General Phycially challenged category, in spite of the fact that he had lower marks than the petitioner as he (Imran Alam) obtained 101 marks out of 200 marks whereas the petitioner obtained 103 marks out of 200 marks.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. Director General, Medical Health & Family Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. In the counter affidavit, the respondent admit the claim of the petitioner but have justified their stand for not granting the admission to the petitioner as she is a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe as according to the respondent No. 2 who is Director General, Medical Health & Family Welfare, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun and the Chairman of the Selection Committee, there is no reservation such as “handicapped Scheduled Tribe”, and since petitioner is a Scheduled Tribe candidate she cannot be given admission under the handicapped category. In other words all four seats reserved for handicapped are for such handicapped candidate who belong to General category. The precise stand of respondent No. 2 is reflected by the contents of the counter affidavit filed by him must be reproduced. In para 2(B) and para 2(C) of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 it has been stated as under:-
“B That it is submitted that the petitioner belongs to the SC category and falls sub-category of handicapped. It is submitted that on the date of UPMT Counseling i.e. 24.08.2012 there was no vacant seat of handicapped sub-category of Scheduled Tribe, consequently, it was not possible to allot the seat of MBBS, to the petitioner, under the handicapped sub-category of Scheduled Tribe.
C. That it is also worth mentioning here that in view of the Government Order dated 2/8/2011 and Government Order dated 24/8/2012 there is no provision for allotting the seat of any category in its sub-category of handicapped persons, in view of the mandate of the aforesaid Government Orders that a person would be given admission against its own sub-category in the reservation category such as no person who belongs
