Posted On by &filed under High Court, Punjab-Haryana High Court.


Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ritu Rani vs Punjab State on 18 October, 2000
Author: R Anand
Bench: R Anand

JUDGMENT

R.L. Anand, J.

1. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for the quashment of the selection and admission of respondents 3 to 6 in the Elementary Teachers Training Course for the academic sessions 1998-2000, and the petitioners have further prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to admit them in the said course.

2. The case set up by the petitioners is that for the session 1998-2000, the State of Punjab, Department of Education, for the purpose of giving admission to Elementary Teachers Training Course issued the prospectus, Annexure P-1. As per the Prospectus, District Muktsar was coded at No. 34. 100 Seats were allotted to every District, i.e. 50 seats each for male and female candidates of that District. 50% seats were reserved for different categories. It was also stipulated in the prospectus that if any seat remains vacant out of the reserved seats, except the seats reserves for SC/ST candidates, the same shall be filled up from general category of male or female. 5% Seats were reserved for Backward Classes, which was coded as Category No. 52.2% Seats were reserved for rural Area and the same was categorised as Category No. 53.2% Seats were reserved for Border/Bet/backward Area and it was categorised as category No. 54. The grouse of the petitioners is that Shaminder Kaur and Charanjit Kaur had applied in the reserved category No. 52 while respondents 3 and 4; namely, Hardeep Kaur and Jitender Kaur, respectively, applied in the Backward Class category. According to the Prospectus, out of five seats, two seats each were to be filled up from male and female candidates and the remaining one seat was to be filled up on the basis of merit. Similarly, Pooja Kak-kar and respondent No. 5-Kiran Pal Kaur applied in the Rural Area Category though there was only one vacancy for female candidates, respondent No. 5 and Pooja Kakkar have been selected. Likewise, Jaspal Kaur and Meenu Bala, respondent No. 6, applied in Category No. 54 and against one seat, respondents 1 and 2 have filled up two seats. It is the case of the petitioners that they got 77.5% marks and were placed in the waiting list of female candidates in the General Category, while respondent No. 3 got 74.5% marks, respondent No. 4 got 74% marks, respondent No. 5 got 74% marks and respondent No. 6 got 70.5% marks and they have been selected. In short, the grouse of the petitioners is that their merit is higher than that of respondents 3 to 6 and, therefore, the admission of respondents 3 to 6 should be quashed.

3. Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondents, who filed the written statement and denied the allegations.

4. According to respondents No. 1 and 2, Shaminder Kaur, Charanjit Kaur, Pooja Kakkar and Jaspal Kaur submitted their forms for admission in reserved categories but by virtue of the decision dated 21.9.1998 passed in C WP 7345 of 1998, they were switched over to general category as per their merit and, in these circumstances, respondents 3 to 6 have been adjusted in the reserved categories.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondents No. 1 and 2 have violated the terms of the Prospectus and they have accommodated more persons

than the quota prescribed by adjusting Shaminder Kaur, Charanjit Kaur, Pooja Kakkar and Jaspal Kaur. Apart from that, respondents 1 and 2 have given admission to respondents 3 to 6 and, in this manner, the rule of reservation and quota has been violated.

7. On the contrary, counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that no violation has been made by the Govt. These four ladies; namely Shaminder Kaur, Charanjit Kaur, Pooja Kakkar and Jaspal Kaur, have been adjusted in the general category and, in these circumstances, respondents 3 to 6 have been adjusted in the reserved quota. It was further submitted by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the cut off percentage in the general category was 78% and the petitioners had got 77.5% marks. Therefore, they were not eligible in the reserved category and respondents 3 to 6 have been adjusted as per their own merit. Therefore, there is no merit in the present writ petition.

8. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have no case as the four ladies; namely, Shaminder Kaur, Charanjit Kaur, Pooja Kakkar and Jaspal Kaur, have been adjusted in the general category and not in the reserved category and they were adjusted as per the orders of the High Court dated 21.9.1998 passed in CWP No. 7345 of 1998. Counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show that in the general category, there was any imbalance in the admission of the aforesaid four candidates in that category. In this view of the matter, I hold that respondents 3 to 6 were adjusted in the reserved categories and as per their own merit and that with the adjustment of Shaminder Kaur, Charanjit Kaur, Pooja Kakkar and Jaspal Kaur no imbalance has been done in the reserved category.

9. No merit. Dismissed.

10. Petition dismissed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

116 queries in 0.202 seconds.