Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 254 (PAT)

Vijay Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2006-03-23

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2006
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved on account of denial of his admission in M.B.B.S. course against the Disabled Quota meant for E.B.C. pursuant to Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination conducted in the year 2005. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prospectus, the disabled quota meant for S.C. comes to 1.44 and disabled quota meant for E.B.C. comes to 1.62, against which the respondent authorities have wrongly admitted two persons against the disabled quota meant for S.C. and one against disabled quota meant for E.B.C. 3. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. V/s. Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors., reported in (2005)2 S.C.C 10 , if the fraction is more than one and half, it is to be treated as 1 and if it is less, then it is to be ignored. According to the learned counsel since the fraction with respect to disabled quota meant for S.C. was only 1.44 i.e. less than 1.5, it should have been ignored and given only one seat and so far as disabled quota meant for E.B.C. is concerned, the fraction being above 1.5 i.e. 1.62 they should have been given two seats. However, the authorities have wrongly given two seats for candidates of disabled quota meant for S.C. and only one seat to the candidates of disabled quota meant for E.B.C, which has resulted in arbitrary denial of the admission of the petitioner, who is a candidate in the category of disabled quota meant for E.B.C. 4. Earlier, there was some confusion regarding the disabled quota meant for R.C.G. (Reserved Category Giris) against which the respondent no. 8 claimed to have superior right than the respondent no. 9, as according to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 8, the respondent no. 9 had not qualified in the first counselling. As such, the respondent no. 9 was also added as party who is now represented by Mr. A.R Sinha, learned Advocate. 5. Mr. 8 claimed to have superior right than the respondent no. 9, as according to the learned counsel for the respondent no. 8, the respondent no. 9 had not qualified in the first counselling. As such, the respondent no. 9 was also added as party who is now represented by Mr. A.R Sinha, learned Advocate. 5. Mr. Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board has submitted that the allotment of seat to disabled quota meant for R.C.G. was wrong as the fraction of this category is less than half, which as per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. (supra) is to be ignored. He submitted that the seat against which the respondent no. 9 was admitted should have gone to the disabled quota meant for Genera! category candidates and as per the merit list the respondent no. 9 among the present three candidates, topped the merit list. As such, she has rightly been given admission in the M.B.B.S. course. 6. However, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 8 since the respondent no. 9 had not appeared in the first counselling, she is not entitled to get admission against the said additional seat for disabled quota of General Category. 7. I find substance in the first submission of Mr. Shahi. Since the fraction of the disabled quota meant for R.C.G. comes to 0.27, no seat can be alloted against that quota, and since the fraction of the disabled quota for general category is 4.5, as is evident from the paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, the seat which was allcted against the disabled quota for R.C.G. would go to the disabled quota of general category. However, in view of the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent no. 8 that respondent no. 9 had not appeared in the first counselling, and thus, not entitled to get the said seat about which the facts are not very clear as to who would be entitled for admission against the said seat, this Court does not express any final opinion regarding it and direct the concerned authority to decide the said question after giving notice to the respondent nos. 8 & 9. 8. As regards the admission of respondent no. 8 & 9. 8. As regards the admission of respondent no. 8 against the disabled quota meant for S.C, l find it difficult to sustain the same, as the seat available for them was only one against which two candidates have been admitted including the respondent no. 8, who was below in the merit position amongst the said two candidates. 9. Mr. Shahi, with respect to the claim of the petitioner, submitted that according to the position in the merit list of the first counselling one Manoj Kumar would be entitled for admission in the M.B.B.S. course against the disabled quota meant for E.B.C. According to him the petitioner, in any case, cannot get the benefit against the additional seat, which will be available to disabled quota meant for E.B.C. after quashing of the admission of respondent no. 8. 10. I am unable to appreciate the said submission of Mr. Shahi. It is true that as per the merit position, as mentioned in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, Manoj Kumar was entitled for admission in M.B.B.S. course, but he was given admission in B.D.S. course and he never approached this Court raising any grievance against the denial of his admission in M.B.B.S. course on the said additional seal, and the present petitioner approached this court well within time, and thus, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot be denied of his legal right for admission against the aforementioned additional seat. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent-Board is directed to admit the petitioner against the alorementioned additional seat of disabled quota meant for E.B.C.