ORDER
1. The short point which calls for consideration in this petition is “as to whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category who had secured more marks in competition than some of the general category candidates should be admitted against a reserved seat or should he be given a seat in the general category ?”
2. Admitted facts are that the petitioner belongs to Chhimba caste which has been declared as one of the Backward Classes for the State of Punjab. State Council of Educational Research and Training, Punjab released an admission notice in a Jaiandhar Punjabi Daily, namely Ajit, on 12-5-1995. As per the admission notice, it was notified that the Punjab Government (Education Department) has decided to hold admission test for admission to ETT Session 1995-97 for admission to the Initial Teachers Training Course (ITT) in all the 12 District Education and Training Institutions and one J.B.T. Institution. Admission was to he made on the basis of district-wise merit list of the candidate. It was further provided that 100 seats each i.e. 50 for boys and 50 for girls were allocated for each district. 5% seats were reserved for the members of the Backward Classes, meaning thereby that out of 100 seats for each district, 5 seats were earmarked for the members of the Backward Classes. Eligibility for admission to the ETT Course was 50% marks in the admission test for the general category candidates and 45% for the candidates belonging to SC/ST. Total marks prescribed for the admission test were 200. In pursuance to the abovesaid admission notice, petitioner applied for taking admission test for admission to the ETT Course as a Backward Class candidate
against Amritsar District. Admission lest was held on 6-8-1995 and the result thereof was published in a Punjab Daily newspaper Ajit dt. 26-2-1996. Petitioner was shown to have secured 107 marks and was placed in the waiting list at serial No. 1 amongst the Backward Class candidates (boys). Respondents prepared separate merit lists for different categories which has resulted in admission of general category candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner. It has been asserted by the petitioner, which has been admitted by the respondents, that 7 general category boys and 7 general category girls, who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner were shown selected for admission to the ETT Course. In other words, instead of getting the benefit of reservation earmarked for Backward Class candidates, petitioner has been put to a disadvantage inasmuch as had he applied as a general category candidate he would have easily got admission to the Courts in question as he would have ranked at serial No. 27 amongst 33 general category (boys) selected candidates.
3. This petition has been filed with a twofold grievance; (i) that out of five seats earmarked for the Backward Class candidates, two boys and one girl i.e. three candidates were put in the list of selected candidates and the petitioner was kept at serial No. 1 in the waiting list, which could not be done and the petitioner should have been adjusted against a seat meant for Backward Class candidates (boys). Second grievance of the petitioner is that a common merit list of all the reserved and unreserved categories should have been prepared and the seats filled up as per that merit list. If any candidate from the reserved category fell in that list, then he should have been treated to have been admitted in the general category. After that the reserved category candidates should have been considered for admission against the reserved seats.
4. We find merit in both the contentions raised! before us. Out of five seats for Backward Class| candidates, only three candidates have been selected by the respondents. Petitioner has been placed in the waiting list whereas he should have been given admission against a seat reserved for Backward Class candidate. The seat meant for Backward Class candidate, when a suitable Backward Class candidate was available, could.
not be given to a general category candidate. In the written statement filed, no reasons have been given for placing the petitioner in the waiting list amongst the Backward Class candidates and offering the seat meant for Backward Class candidates to a general category candidate.
5. Respondents have prepared separate merit lists for different categories which has resulted in admission of general category candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner. Petitioner obtained more marks than 7 general category boys, who were shown selected for admission to the Course. In other words, instead of getting benefit of reservation provided for Backward Class candidates, petitioner has been put to disadvantage inasmuch as had he applied as a general category candidate, he would have easily got admission to the Course as he would have ranked at serial No. 27 amongst the 33 general category (boys) selected candidates. Petitioner could not be put to a disadvantageous position as against the general category candidates merely because he belonged to a reserved Backward Class category inasmuch as general category candidates with lesser marks could not be allowed to steal a march over the petitioner. The point is not res integra. This point was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Jaskaran,Singh v. State of Punjab.(1995) 1 Serv LR 641, and it was held as under :–
“The object of any reservation is to give some benefit by reserving a few seats for that class for whom reservation is made. The underlying assumption is that such a class of persons is not capable of competing on merits with others because of economic, social, geographical, political or any other reason. It does not, however, imply that if a person from a reserved class does well on merit and secures a higher position than
the general candidates, he should not be allowed to take advantage of his merit and compete for the seats meant for the general candidates. The reservation inheres in itself the grant of some concession to a class of persons who are not otherwise likely to get admissions and if any one from that class can get admission on merit, it cannot be said that such a person has been given the benefit of that concession and that he should be given a seat meant only for the unreserved category. The implementation of the present policy of the State Government would mean that a candidate belonging to the reserved category is not allowed to seek admission against the seats meant for general categories and the reservation instead of working to the benefit of the reserved categories would work to their detriment. The effect of such instructions would be that students falling in the reserved categories can only claim the reserved seats and even if they fair better than others in the open competition they will not be allowed to occupy any unreserved scat. In other words, it means that only such number of candidates from the reserved category would be allowed admission as are equal to the number of reserved seats even though larger number from that class may have secured more marks than the candidates in the general category. This, in our opinion, is arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.”
6. We agree with the view expressed in Jaskaran Singh’s case (1995 (1) Serv LR 641) (Punj & Har) (supra).
7. For the reasons recorded above this petition is accepted. Respondents are directed to give admission to the petitioner as per his merit forthwith. No costs.
8. Petition allowed.