State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Ravdeep Singh Sohal .

Order

1. This appeal by special leave puts in issue the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 30-11-1995. Brief facts requiring our consideration are:

The father of the respondent was, at the relevant time, serving in the Indian Army holding the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He was transferred from Headquarters 39, Mountain Division, Kashmir to serve at Military Hospital, Pulgaon in the month of October 1993. The father of the respondent, accordingly, joined his duties at Pulgaon on 2-11-1993. After the transfer of his father, the respondent took admission in XIth standard at Junior College at Pulgaon in January 1994. He appeared in the XIIth standard examination conducted by the Maharashtra Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Maharashtra in March 1995 and passed the examination securing 438 marks out of 600.

2. Appellant 1 has framed rules governing admission to the medical colleges in the State. Those also provide for reservations for children of defence service personnel and ex-defence service personnel. Those rules are not statutory rules but in the nature of guidelines.

3. The respondent, taking note of the prospectus issued by Appellant 1 for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for the year 1995-96 and finding himself eligible, submitted his application for admission to the MBBS course as per the prescribed procedure. The respondent had sought admission both in the Open Merit Category as well as in the reserved Defence 3 Category. In the provisional merit list, displayed on 27-6-1995 by the College, the name of the respondent appeared at Sl. No. 517 in the Open Merit Category and at Sl. No. 1 in Defence 3 Category. In the final merit list, which was displayed on 3-7-1995, while the name of the respondent was shown at Sl. No. 518 in the Open Merit Category, it had been removed from Defence 3 Category and another candidate was shown at Sl. No. 1, who had less marks than the respondent. The respondent was not apprised of the reasons for the removal of his name from the merit list at Sl. No. 1 reserved for Defence 3 Category. He, through his father, filed a writ petition in the High Court and sought striking down of the provisions of Rule 5.2.2.3.1 of the Rules for Admission to MBBS and BDS Courses, 1995-96 framed by the Government of Maharashtra on the ground that the cut-off date (1-7-1994) given in that Rule would render all other Rules meaningless and inoperative. Rule 5.2.2.3.1 inter alia provides that the defence service person concerned ought to have been transferred to Maharashtra, in public interest, on or after 1-7-1994. The Division Bench of the High Court, after a detailed discussion, and keeping in view the peculiar situation in which defence personnel are placed and the exigencies of their transfer, in public interest, during an academic year, instead of striking down the said Rule, read it down to harmonise it with other Rules and opined that the respondent having passed the qualifying examination from a recognised school/college situate in the State of Maharashtra itself could not be denied admission on the ground that his father had been transferred to the State of Maharashtra in October 1993, i.e, before the cut-off date given in the Rule. We agree with the opinion expressed by the High Court that if the cut-off date of 1-7-1994 was strictly made applicable, the object of providing reservation to the category of students belonging to Defence 3 Category, who come to the State of Maharashtra from outside on account of transfers of their parents in public interest, would be virtually defeated because transfers of defence personnel are made in public interest not at any fixed period of time. The High Court, as a matter of fact, has harmonised the Rule by reading it down and saved it from the vice of irrationality or arbitrariness. In our opinion, the view taken by the High Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case is unexceptionable. We see no reason to interfere. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.