IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.8414 of 2011
Dr.Sanjay Kumar Mishra, son of Sri Suryakant Mishra, resident of
village - Ram Nagar, P S - Rahika, District - Madhubani, presently
residing at E.W.S. 80, Harmoo House Colony, Ranchi (Jharkhand).
______ Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Health Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board,
I.A.S. Association Building, Near Patna Airport, Patna through its
Secretary.
3. The Controller of Examination of Bihar Combined Entrance
Competitive Examination Board, I.A.S. Association Building,
Near Patna Airport, Patna.
______ Respondents
-----------
For the petitioner: M/S. Shiya Ram Shahi and Md. Anisur Rahman.
For the BCECE Board: Mr. Vikas Kumar.
For the State : Mr. Arun Kumar Prasad, AC to GA 4.
——
05. 12 .08.2011 Petitioner wants a direction upon the respondent
authorities to permit him to take admission in MD(Ayurved) in
Dravaya Gun. He claims a right for such admission on the basis
of the result published by the respondent Bihar Combined
Entrance Competitive Examination Board i.e. Respondent No.2.
He claims that the respondents have not only acted arbitrarily by
not allowing him to be admitted into the said course but have
also violated the terms of the advertisement as well as the merit
list which was notified by the respondents. He submits that
based on the merit list in the general category he would have
been the only choice for being offered a seat in Dravaya Gun but
illegally yet another person namely Chandrajeet Kumar who was
placed in the BC category having Roll No. 30139 at Serial No. 7
was admitted at the cost of the petitioner. By allowing such a
jump the right of the petitioner has been taken away in the garb
2
of providing opening to persons falling in the reserved category.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent Nos. 2 and 3. They submit that there is no wrong
doing with regard to the admission in the course or subject
which has been offered to the candidates based on their
respective merit position as well as the reservation policy, which
is followed in the State. In the counter affidavit the details of the
seat and the course which were available for admission have
been indicated. Counselling in this regard was held on
28.4.2011, which was strictly on merit cum choice basis.
Names of candidates who were given admission in various
courses have been listed seriatim wise in para 8, which
according to them does not suffer from any vice. They have
explained that one Dr. Amod Prakash, Roll No.30132, merit
position Gen-04 and also BC-02, instead of opting for a single
seat of Dravayagun course available in General Category at his
merit, preferred to opt for the single seat of Ras-Shashtra
course available at his BC-02 merit serial. This was a case of
jumping from General Category to Reserved BC category
which required compensation as per resolution of Health
Deptt. Vide Memo No.224(26)/26 PGMAT-2-6/95/Health dated
14.11.1995. Accordingly Ras-Shashtra course was allotted to
him and the last seat of Dravayagun course available in General
Category was made available to BC category as compensation
and the same was allotted to Dr. Chandrajeet Kumar, Roll
3
No.30139, Merit Serial – BC-03 on the basis of merit-cum-
option.
In this connection para -9 of the call letter
No.99/2011 dated 7.4.2011 enclosed with this writ application
as Annexure-4 clarifies that the candidates belonging to
different reservation categories, who have qualified in General
merit list as also in their respective reserve category merit list,
such candidates of General category will be allowed to exercise
their option of Institution/Course against the seat available in
their respective reserve category also at their merit position and
will not be adjusted / counted against such reserve category
seats.
Para-9 (A) (iv) of the prospectus of PGMAT-2011
also provides that the candidates of reserve categories,
competing in General Merit list will not be counted against
reserve category seats. Such candidate will have the option for
General as well as the concerned reserved category seats. But if
the seat of reserved category gets exhausted due to their
option, it will be compensated from the seats of General Merit
list (Category).
All this clarification or the reason explained by the
respondents is based on the letter issued by the Department of
Health way back on 14.11.1995, which in terms had to be issued
on the basis of decisions rendered by the High Court on such
matter. Details of which have been indicated in para 2 of the
4
said letter being Annexure-B to the counter affidavit, which is in
existence since 1995 and has been implemented strictly in letter
and spirit and has been applied to the present case.
Thus, the submission of the counsel for the
petitioner is very imaginary rather than based on actual state of
affairs. Since parity has been maintained and opening has been
provided to the persons belonging to reserved category in terms
of the direction or the decision of the Government in terms of
Annexure-B and that does not have the effect of changing the
percentage of reservation, this petitioner as a matter of right
cannot claim admission into Dravayagun on merit position.
If Dr. Amod Prakash had not opted for Ras-Shashra
course by jumping to the reserved category of BC category,
there may not have an occasion to apply the principle of
compensation by giving an opening to yet another person
namely, Dr. Chandrajeet Kumar on the basis of Annexure-B.
But since Dr. Amod Prakash had a right to claim admission in a
better stream by virtue of his position even in reserved category,
1995 circular came in the way of the petitioner which he is
looking for.
In the totality of the facts and the circular there is no
arbitrariness nor does a right in favour of the petitioner accrue
for admission in the stream which he was looking for.
Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
5