COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 14.11.2008
Binish Kathuria ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Jagjit Puri and another ...Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab
Mr.A.R.Takkar, Advocate
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
The petitioner filed CWP No.6999 of 2007 challenging
Clauses 13 and 14 of the Notification No.5/8/2007-3HB3/1334 dated
21.3.2007 as violative of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Saurabh Chaudri and another v. Union of India, AIR
2004 SC 361 and also prayed to consider the candidature of
graduates for admission to P.G. Degree/Diploma Courses during the
session 2007 on the basis of institutional preference only. The
aforesaid writ petition came to be decided vide judgment dated
12.7.2007 by this Court. Following observations have been made in
the aforesaid judgment:-
COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :2:
“…In view of above, challenge to Clause 13 of the
impugned notification has been rendered unnecessary.
Needless to observe that the State of Punjab is bound by
the law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saurabh
Chaudhri (supra), that reservation for Post Graduate
courses has to be based on institutional preference and
not on place of residence, apart from other permissible
constitutional reservations…”
This Court relied upon the case of Saurabh Chaudhri (supra)
wherein following observations were made:-
“…We are therefore of the view that so far as
admissions to post-graduate courses, such as MS,
MD and the like are concerned, it would be
eminently desirable not to provide for any
reservation based on residence requirement within
the State or on institutional preference. But,
having regard to broader considerations of
equality of opportunity and institutional continuity
in education which has its own importance and
value, we would direct that though residence
requirement within the State shall not be a ground
for reservation in admissions to post-graduate
courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the
present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of
institutional preference in the sense that a student
who has passed MBBS course from a medical
COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :3:college or University, may be given preference for
admission to the post-graduate course in the same
medical college or University but such reservation
on the basis of institutional preference should not
in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total
number of open seats available for admission to
the post-graduate course. This outer limit which
we are fixing will also be subject to revision on
the lower side by the Indian Medical Council in
the same manner as directed by us in the case of
admission to the MBBS course. But, even in
regard to admissions to the post-graduate course,
we would direct that so far as super specialities
such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are
concerned, there should be no reservation at all
even on the basis of institutional preference and
admissions should be granted purely on merit on
all-India basis.
It in no uncertain terms direction:
The decisions reached by us in these writ petitions
will bind the Union of India, the State
Governments and Administrations of Union
Territories because it lays down the law for the
entire country and moreover we have reached this
decision after giving notice to the Union of India
and all the State Governments and Union
COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :4:Territories.”
After passing of the aforesaid judgment, petitioner made a
representation dated 20.7.2007 for implementation of the judgment.
Even when this judgment was not implemented, the petitioner filed
the present contempt petition.
When notice of this petition was issued, respondents sought
time to implement the judgment. Respondent issued a notification
dated 27.6.2007 allegedly in compliance of the judgment. However,
it was found that the Notification is not in consonance with the
judgment of this court where under eleven seats out of 21 seats
available for General Category candidates in the State Medical
Colleges were reserved by way of institutional preference to the
exclusion of the petitioner. It was found that the judgment has not
been carried out in letter and spirit. Accordingly, counsel for the
respondents-State sought further time to comply with the judgment
and consequently a Corrigendum dated 14.8.2008 has been issued
whereby Clause 13 has been deleted from the Original Notification
dated 17.3.2008. This Corrigendum, however, satisfies the court
judgment.
Mr.Ashok Sharma Nabhewala, learned counsel for the
petitioner, however, has vehemently argued that though the
respondents have complied with the judgment by issuing the
Corrigendum, but it has taken more than two years to comply with
the judgment and the petitioners have been deprived of their right for
seeking admission in Post-Graduate Courses for more than two years
which has adversely affected their career. His further contention is
COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :5:
that even though the judgment has been complied, but for more than
two years, the respondents have committed the contempt of court
and they should be punished in accordance with law. There seems to
be substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Respondents have issued the Corrigendum after one year
of the passing of the judgment. It has definitely adversely affected
the career of the petitioner. However, since the respondents have
now complied with the judgment and have also tendered
unconditional apology, I decline to impose any punishment.
However, keeping in view the fact that it has adversely affected the
career of the petitioners, I award compensatory costs to all the
petitioners in CWP No.6999 of 2007 at the rate of Rs.5,000/- each.
This amount shall be deposited by the respondents-State before this
Court for disbursement to the petitioners in the writ petition within a
period of four weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing
which the contempt proceedings shall stand revived.
Disposed of.
(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE
20.5.2008
MFK
NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES/NO
COCP NO.1117 OF 2007 :6: