ORDER
Y.P. Nargotra, J.
1. Pursuant to notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for undergoing five years Law course for the Session 2003-04 issued by Respondent No. 3, the petitioner herein belonging to Lachhdayyaram Tehsil Kishtwar District Doda, a backward area, applied but was not selected, though he had obtained 52 marks. However, the respondent No. 4 who belonged to Backward Area of Leh and Kargil was selected despite the fact that he had obtained 40 marks in written test conducted for selection of the candidates.
2. The petitioner has challenged the selection of Respondent No. 4 out of the reserved category of candidates belonging to Backward Areas on the ground that in the said category he possessed better merit as such in place of respondent No. 4, he should have been selected for admission to the Law Course.
3. The case projected by the petitioner is that distribution of 50 seats included 4% reservation for candidates of Backward Areas including Districts of Leh and Kargil under Clause vi(a) of the INFORMATION BROCHURE which included the Backward Area of District Doda and therefore, he being of higher merit than Respondent No. 4 deserved to be selected. The Clause vi(a) reads :-
"vi(a) Candidates belonging to
Backward Areas including 4%
that of districts Leh and Kargil."
4. The stand taken by the Official respondents is that though in the above quoted clause candidates belonging to Backward Areas were shown clubbed in one category entitled to reservation of 4% but the General Statute of the University provided for reservation as 2% for the candidates of District Leh and Kargil and 2% for residents of other Backward Areas. Since for these two categories only two seats were available, one was given under RBA category to the candidate obtaining highest merit and likewise one seat was given to the candidate of District Leh and Kargil, i.e. respondent No. 4. As the petitioner’s merit was not the highest in RBA category, so was not selected.
5. In this view of the stand taken the only question arising for consideration is whether Clause vi(a) of the Brochure makes it obligatory on the University to treat the candidates of RBA category and candidates of Districts of Leh and Kargil to be falling in one Class for the purposes of Reservation of 4% even when Statute provides for treating them into two separate Classes entitled to reservation at 2% each Class.
6. It is nobody’s case that General Statute does not provide reservation of 2% each for candidates of RBA and candidates of Districts of Leh and Kargil. Therefore, Clause vi(a) of Information Brochure is directly in conflict with General Statute’s provision made in this behalf. The Information Brochure itself at page 14 contains the following note :–
“NOTE :
In case of any discrepancy/dispute, notwithstanding anything contained in the admission brochure, the statutes/regulations governing admission to Bachelor of Law 5 years course in conjunction with general statutes/regulations governing admissions to other programmes of the University shall be followed.”
7. In view the above quoted note in the Brochure, the reservation is to be governed by the General Statute and not by Clause vi(a). The petitioner, therefore, cannot legally sustain his claim simply by relying upon Clause vi(a). The petitioner as such for the purposes of admission cannot be equated with respondent No. 4, who belongs to a separate category.
8. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition. Dismissed.
