Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 15 (MP)

Rajeev Mishra v. State of M. P.

2004-01-07

RAJENDRA MENON

body2004
JUDGMENT As common questions are involved in both these cases, they are being disposed of by this common order. In both these cases, petitioners who are graduates in Ayurvedi Medicines and have completed the course in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine are seeking admission to the course of M.D. (Ayurved) for the year 2001-2002. In W.P. No. 1780/03, petitioners seek admission against a quota reserved for un-reserved male whereas in W.P. No. 1782/03, petitioner claims admission against a quota for OBC male. It is the case of the petitioners that in both these cases in the advertisement issued and in the call letter given to them for appearing in the selection process and for admission to P.G. course. As contended in Annexure P-4 in W.P. No. 1780/03 it is dearly mentioned that for the Academic year 2001-2002, one seat is reserved for OBC Male, one seat is reserved for Male and one for Female. It is the case of the petitioners that once the seats are reserved for OBC Male and unreserved Male, the rules are notified wherein the seats are shown as reserved for OBC Male and unreserved Male, it has to be filled by these candidates only. Referring to the statutory rules as published vide Annexure R-1 it was submitted by Shri Jain, learned Sr. counsel that for the session 2001, reservations have been made as per the aforesaid notification and without amending the aforesaid notification, change of the reservation policy and roaster system by executive order is unsustainable. Placing reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Amer Khan v. State of M.P. and Others 2002 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 114 = 2002 (1) MPJR 484 and in the case of State of M.P. and Others v. Pradeep Meshram and Others 2001 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 199 = 2001 (2) M.P. High Court Today 164, it was submitted by Shri Jain, learned Sr. Counsel that reservation notified cannot be changed. It is the case of the respondents that under law, reservation is only for SC, ST, OBC, and Women candidate. There is no further reservation for male candidate either in OBC or in General Category. It was emphasized, by them that the figures given in Annexure R-1 is not correct. Referring to the notification it was pointed out that it has been wrongly mentioned in the said notification that there is reservation for male candidate. There is no further reservation for male candidate either in OBC or in General Category. It was emphasized, by them that the figures given in Annexure R-1 is not correct. Referring to the notification it was pointed out that it has been wrongly mentioned in the said notification that there is reservation for male candidate. It was submitted by Shri K.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the State that this position is dear if the notification Annexure R-2 for the year 2003 is seen wherein reservation is only for SC, ST, OBC and Women Candidate. There is no further reservation for male candidate. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents that inadvertently, by mistake, reservation was shown for male candidates in the advertisement, call letter and notification Annexure R-1 which is a mistake, it has been corrected and admission strictly in accordance with merit have been granted to the private respondents who have secured more marks than the petitioners. As far as the private respondents are concerned, Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that respondent Dr. Suchi Dubey in W.P. No. 1780/03 has obtained 80.5% marks and respondent Jyoti Chaurasiya in W.P. No. 1780/03 has obtained 80% marks, and petitioner Dr. Rajeev Mishra in W.P. No. 1780/03 had obtained 71 % marks and Petitioner Shyam Babu Soni in W.P. No. 1782/03 secured only 54.5% marks. It was, therefore submitted by him that as the private respondents in both the cases namely Dr. Suchi Dubey and Dr. Jyoti Chaurasiya have received more marks than the petitioners, there is no illegality in their admission. Accordingly, it was submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that even though in the notification Annexure R-l and the call letter Annexure P-4 issued, it is mentioned that seats are reserved for OBC Male and Unreserved Male, the same seems to be a mistake committed by the respondents. In both the notifications Annexure R-l and R-2, reference is made to a letter dated 4th October 2000 with regard to reservation in M.D. Course. In the said notification for the year 2001, reservation is shown for SC, ST and OBC candidates and also for female candidates. In both the notifications Annexure R-l and R-2, reference is made to a letter dated 4th October 2000 with regard to reservation in M.D. Course. In the said notification for the year 2001, reservation is shown for SC, ST and OBC candidates and also for female candidates. There is no further reservation for male candidate in any of the categories. Therefore, apparently, there seems to be some mistake in the notification issued showing reservation for Male candidate in different categories. Even otherwise, reservation is governed by statutory provisions and petitioners cannot take advantage of some mistake which is committed by the Department. Petitioners have to show that there is reservation available for Male candidate in different categories like SC ST and OBC or in the Unreserved category. There is no pleading or material on record pointing out in the statutory provisions governing the rules of reservation wherein reservation is provided for male candidates in different categories. In the view of this Court, that under the statutory rules and law governing reservation, reservation is for SC/ST/OBC and Women Candidates and there is no further reservation for Male candidates in any of the categories. That being so, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner, on the contrary, the averments made by the respondents in their return with regard to the mistake committed by them seems to be reasonable and acceptable. Petitioners cannot take advantage of some mistake committed by the Department. They have to demonstrate that under the law governing reservation, there is a specific provision for making further reservation to Male Candidates in different categories. The same having not being done, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in the present case. However, the case of Ameer Khan (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In that case the question which was considered by this Court is with regard to horizontal reservation and allotment of seats. The same does not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. That apart, as already indicated hereinabove, the statutory rules do not provide for any further reservation in different categories for Male candidates, that being so, this Court cannot issue a mandamus directing for allotment of seats to the petitioners. That apart, the private respondents have obtained more marks than the petitioners in both the cases and on that ground also, their admission cannot be challenged. That apart, the private respondents have obtained more marks than the petitioners in both the cases and on that ground also, their admission cannot be challenged. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the reasons indicated hereinabove, I find no ground for interfering in the matter. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed without any order as to cost.