JUDGMENT
R.C. Chopra, J.
1. The petitioners who belong to Scheduled Tribe category were admitted to M.S./M.D. Course of respondent No. 2 AIIMS in the Session commencing January, 2002. Their grievance is that one seat in one seat in Orthopaedics Department which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe quota and in which petitioner No. 1 was interested was withdrawn as a result of which all the three petitioners were offered different disciplines which were not of their choice. As a result the petitioner No. 1 was admitted to medicine instead of orthopaedics and petitioner No. 2 ENT instead of medicine. Petitioner No. 3 had to opt out of the course as he was offered a non-clinical course.
2. The petitioner’s case is that they had completed their MBBS Course from different institutions. They belong to Scheduled Tribe category and as such fall in quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe community. The respondent No. 2 which is a statutory body notified 77 seats for admission into M.S./M.D. course in different disciplines through an entrance test that was conducted on 8.11.2001. According to the prospectus issued for the January, 2002 session and the advertisement issued in different newspapers six seats in different departments including one in the Department of Orthopaedics was shown to be available for candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. The petitioners cleared the entrance examination and were ranked No. 2, 3 and 4 amongst Scheduled Tribe candidates. They were asked to attend the Counselling Session for getting the disciplines of their choice. It was averred that they had applied for admission into MS/M.D. course at PGI-MER, Chandigarh also but did not take its entrance test as they felt that they had good chances for admission in AIIMS itself.
3. The petitioners averred that in the course of counselling only they were informed that the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe community in the Department of Orthopaedics had been withdrawn and as such the petitioner No. 1 would have to chose a seat out of the remaining four departments. Due to withdrawal of the seat from the Orthopaedics Department, petitioners No. 2 and 3 were also affected for the reason that petitioners No. 1, 2 and 3 intended to take admission in Orthopaedic, Medicines and ENT respectively but on account of withdrawal of the seat in Orthopaedic, petitioner No. 1 had to opt for Medicine, petitioner No. 2 for ENT and petitioner No. 3 physiology. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 had not informed the petitioners even once before the counselling session that the seat in the department of Orthopaedics had been withdrawn which act was stated to be illegal, unlawful and unfair. In these premises it was prayed that the decision taken by the respondents regarding withdrawal of a seat from the Department of Orthopaedics be quashed and the said seat be earmarked for Scheduled Tribe candidate as per the prospectus. It was also prayed that petitioners be allotted seats in accordance with their choices and as per their ranks with due regard to their category/caste.
4. The respondents in their rejoinder controverter the petitioner’s prayer mainly on the ground that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in AIIMS Students Union v. AIIMS and Ors. delivered on 24.8.2001, a corrigendum was issued in the newspapers on 18.9.2001 intimating the candidates about the availability of the seats reserved/earmarked for AIIMS candidates. In addition the said corrigendum also indicated that the correct number of seats in the Orthopaedics Department was 2 and not 4 as notified earlier. It was submitted that this correction was necessitated due to a bonafide mistake regarding the number of seats. The last date for submitting the applications was 28.9.2001 whereas the corrigendum appeared in the newspapers on 18.9.2001 and as such nothing was concealed. It was submitted that since the seat in the Orthopaedics Department for Scheduled Tribes candidate was already filled up another seat could not be offered to them. It was also submitted that the two candidates selected for the two available seats in the Orthopaedics Department had already joined prior to the filing of this writ petition. They had not been imp leaded even as parties. It was clarified that respondent No. 2 was providing reservations in accordance with law but in view of different disciplines a roster was being maintained to allot available seats in different disciplines as and when those were available.
5. The petitioners filed a rejoinder to the counter of the respondents and reiterated that the seat for Scheduled Tribe community was available in the Department of Orthopaedics but the petitioner No. 1 was illegally denied admission therein It was stated that the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 24.8.2001 had not bearing on the instant case and even the corrigendum issued by the respondent No. 2 was being challenged in another writ petition pending before the Court.
6. It is true that in the prospectus issued for M.D./M.S. Course of respondent No. 2 pertaining to January, 2002 session four seats were shown as available in Orthopaedics out of which one was shown as reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate but the respondents by filing a copy of their seven years roster in regard to the allocation of seats as well as additional affidavit of Dr. P.K. Dave, Director AIIMS, have shown that in the Orthopaedics department one seat was given to a Scheduled Tribe candidate in the July, 1996 session and the other would be available to a Scheduled Tribe candidate only in July, 2002 session. A copy of the corrigendum issued by respondent No. 2 in the newspaper on 18.9.2001 is also on record in which it was clearly notified that the total number of seats available in the Orthopaedics may be read as two and in Obstetrics and Gynaecology as four. The plea of the petitioners, therefore, that only at the time of counselling they came to know about the change of the number of seats in the Orthopaedics or non availability of any seat therein for Scheduled Tribe candidate cannot be believed.
7. Coming to the question of non-availability of any seat for Scheduled Tribe candidates in the Department of Orthopaedics, this Court finds that the respondent No. 2 is maintaining a roster for allocation of seats for the reserved categories in different disciplines. The number of seats in every discipline is not enough to give admissions to the candidates belonging to all reserved categories in every session. For example if there are two seats in one department and one goes to a general candidate the remaining one seat cannot be given to all the candidates belonging to different reserved categories. The respondent No. 2 for the purpose of allocation of seats in different disciplines to the reserved categories, is following a formula which is detailed in para 4 of the additional affidavit and reads as under:-
“(a) The share of seats for SC, ST and AIIMS categories may be worked out in proportion to their prescribed quotas (15% for SC, 7-1/2% for ST and 25% for AIIMS). The number of seats equal to the full digits of the share thus worked out may be allotted to that category and the balance (fraction of a digit) may be carried over to the following session as credit balance for being added to that session’s share. The number of seats left after allocation to the three reserve categories may be allotted to the general category. The working charge prepared by Examination Section by way of illustration was seen and method of allocation therein was approved.
(b) It should be ensured that 15%, 7-1/2% and 25% of the total seats advertised are allotted to SC, ST and AIIMS categories respectively. In order to achieve this, seats may be allocated to a reserve category even if its share is less than full digit by granting advance credit to be carried over to the following session as negative balance for being adjusted against that session’s share.”
8. For allowing the aforesaid formula the respondent No. 2 maintains a roster depicting the share of different reserved categories in different disciplines for each session and carries forward balance to the forthcoming sessions. Each session’s credit is added to the balance and as and when, for a particular category, the balance goes above 50 per cent of a seat the admission is given to the candidate belonging to that category and for the advance credit a debit balance is shown in that category which is wiped out be subsequent credits. After wiping out of the debit once again the credit balance starts for that category and as and when it goes above half of a digit one more admission to a candidate belonging to that category is granted. This method for allocation of seats in different disciplines does not violate reservation policy in any manner whatsoever and is merely a mode for allocation of seats in different disciplines. The allocation of seats to reserved category candidates does not appear to be possible in any other way for the reason that in any one session the number of seats is not so much that candidates belong to all the reserved categories may be admitted.
9. The availability of seats in different departments keeps on changing on account of various factors including the passing out of the candidates already admitted. The chart placed on record on behalf of respondent No. 2 shows that for January, 2002 session only two seats were available in the Department of Orthopaedics in which the share of the Scheduled Tribe candidates was 0.15 only and as such it was added as credit in the roster. The seat position regarding July 2001 shows that in that session also two seats were available in Orthopaedics department out of which one seat was allotted to a Scheduled Caste candidates as their total share had gone to 0.60 whereas the share of the Scheduled Tribe category was at 0.30 only. This Court, thus, has no hesitation in concluding that the four seats as declared in the prospectus for January, 2002 session by respondent No. 2 was merely on account of mistake by the office and in fact there were only two seats in Orthopaedics Department out of which the share of Scheduled Tribe candidates was 0.15 only which was added to their previous balance and their total share became 0.45. Since it was less than half no seat could be offered to Scheduled Tribe candidate in the said session.
10. The petitioners, therefore, should not have any grievance against the respondents. They appear to be over-reacting by insisting there was a seat for a scheduled Tribe candidate in Orthopaedics Department but it was illegally withdrawn to their detriment. The method adopted by the respondent No. 2 for allocation of seats in different disciplines to the candidates belonging to reserved categories is a reasonable and fair mode. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not suggest any other method by which the allocations of seats to reserved categories could be made. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that there is no substance in the averments made by the petitioners on account of non-availability of a seat in the Orthopaedics department for January, 2002 session and consequent admission of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 to different disciplines. The writ petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.
11. It stands dismissed accordingly.