IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 18187 of 2016 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 Shivani …..Petitioner versus U. T., of Chandigarh through its Secretary and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE Present : Mr. Samarth Sagar, Advocate and Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh.

Mr. Nitin Kant Setia, Advocate, for respondent-CBSE.

Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Raywant Kaushish, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for respondent No.7.

****

SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)

The petitioner who was aspirant for admission to MBBS course after completing her National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for the session 2016-17 approached this Court through the present petition praying for the following reliefs:-

i) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for admission to MBBS course at Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh (GMCH) i.e. respondent No.6, as based upon National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for the session 2016-17, according to the mandatory provisions of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006, as applicable to the Central Educational Institutions;

ii) A writ/direction declaring the impugned action of the respondent-authorities as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice, while not considering the case of the present petitioner under OBC category, according to the provisions of Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission ) Act, 2006.”

2. While taking cognizance of the matter, this Court on 02.09.2016 passed the following interim order:-

“Inter alia submits that the petitioner belongs to backward class and referred to the certificate issued by the SDM, U.T. Chandigarh dated 05.08.2015 (Annexure P- 2). It is submitted that she sat in the NEET-2016 and has got percentile score of 96.058521, as per the result declared on 16.08.2016 (Annexure P-6) in the category of OBC. Her overall rank is 28621 and her category rank is 10663. It is submitted that the respondent-college is not considering her case against the reserved vacancy, on account of the fact that the prospectus (Annexure P-5) does not prescribe any reservations for OBC category. In such circumstances, the petitioner is shown as a General Category candidate and figuring at Sr. No.183 of the merit list (Annexure P-7).

It is, accordingly, contended that Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 provides that reservation to the extent of 27% is to be provided for Other Backward Classes out of the annual permitted strength in each branch of study. Reliance is also placed upon similar reservation provided by the, PGIMER, University of Delhi and JIPMER (Annexures P-8 to P-10).

Notice of motion.

Mr. Ashish Rawal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 6.

Respondents No.3, 4, 5 and 7 be served by way of dasti process for 13.09.2016.

In the meantime, the petitioner's case shall be considered provisionally by treating her as a reserved candidate. In case the petitioner is within the zone of consideration, she will be permitted to deposit her fees.

Copy of this order be given under signatures of the Special Secretary of this Court, to the counsel for the parties.”

3. Pursuant to the interim order dated 02.09.2016, directing respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner, the same was considered but rejected since there was no reservation prescribed for Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Chandigarh and also that her caste ‘Hindu Vaniyas’ was not a Backward class in Chandigarh.

4. Interim order dated 02.09.2016 was assailed by Union Territory, Chandigarh in LPA No. 2507 of 2016 which came to be dismissed on-merits on 24.01.2017 by this Court.

5. T