Tejpal Yadav v. Union of India & Ors

MANMOHAN, J November 29, 2010 dk

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : 20th September, 2010 % Judgment Pronounced on: 29th November, 2010 + LPA 611/2010 & CM No.15295/2010 TEJ PAL YADAV ..... Appellant Through: Mr. R.K. Saini with Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary and Mr. Vikas Saini, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Atul Nanda, CGSC, with Ms.Sugandha, Adv. for R-1 Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. for R-4. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ In this intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, the sustainability of the order dated 13th August, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5492/2010 is called in question. 2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that the appellant had appeared for the All India Pre-Medical / Pre-Dental Entrance Examination held by the Central Board of Secondary Education, the respondent No.4 herein, for admission to the 15% All India seats quota in the Medical Colleges all over the country. As per the stipulations in the prospectus, the appellant appeared in the Preliminary Examination as an OBC candidate and secured 49.2% marks in the said examination as a result of which he qualified to appear in the final examination. He appeared in the final examination and secured 72.3% marks and was placed at serial No.3017 in the All India Rank and Counselling Category Rank of 2965 (OBC – 1179). As per the Rank letter dated 23.5.2010 in the column "Result", it was mentioned that the appellant was "Qualified in Wait List – Eligible for (OBC) seats only". As put forth, the Appellant appeared for counselling on 10.8.2010 as per his Counseling Category Rank of 2965. Though seats in the General Category were said to be available on that day, yet the seats reserved for the OBC Category were filled up as a consequence of which the appellant was not considered for admission. It was contended before the writ court that as the appellant had secured 72.3% marks in the Final Examination, he was entitled to be considered in the General Category and not in the OBC category alone. Before the learned Single Judge, the mode of implementation of OBC and Physical Handicapped Reservation in 15% All India Quota (MBBS / BDS) seats were pressed into service. Relying on the same, it was contended that the appellant was entitled to be considered in the reserved category. 3. The stand and stance put forth by the appellant was resisted by the respondent No.2, the Directorate General of Health Services, contending, inter alia, that the appellant had qualified in the Preliminary Examination as an OBC candidate but not as a candidate belonging to the unreserved category inasmuch as a candidate belonging to General Category was required to obtain / secure 50% marks to undertake the main examination but the appellant was declared qualified under the OBC quota as he had secured more than 40% marks which is the requisite marks to be secured by a candidate belonging to the OBC Category and, therefore, his claim can only be considered in respect of seats meant for the OBC category. 4. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the stand and stance put forth by the parties, came to hold that the qualification in the preliminary examination cannot be lost sight of while determining whether a candidate was qualified in the OBC quota or in the unreserved quota and, in fact, the very presence of the writ petitioner in the final examination was attributable to the lowering of the standard of eligibility meant for the OBC candidates. It is also worth noting that the learned Single Judge has also referred to the prospectus which has been placed on the website of the Directorate General of Health Services pertaining to reser