news details |
|
|
| HC disposes PIL challenging Reservations Rules of 2005 | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 3: A high court division bench of Justice Muzaffar Hussain Attar and Justice Janak Raj Kotwal today disposed of the PIL, challenging rule 17 of Reservations Rules framed under Reservation Act of the state.
The bench observed that Petitioner's contention, or say his anxiety, that Rule 17 of the Rules tends to increase the number of seats reserved for a reserved category beyond permissible limit, we may say, arises from his wrong notion about application of the rule. The benefit made available under Rule 17 has no relation with the seats available in open merit or those reserved for reserved category candidates. What the Rule provides is that if a candidate belonging to a reserved category and entitled to reservation succeeds in securing seat in open merit, he shall be entitled and shall have an option to retain the benefit of discipline/stream or college which would have been available to him had he been selected against a seat reserved for that category. To say otherwise, such a candidate has an option to choose between the discipline/stream or the college available to him as an open merit candidate and the discipline/stream or the college that would have been available to him had he been selected as a reserved category candidate. In case such a candidate opts for the discipline/stream or the college that would have been available to him had he been selected against a reserved seat, the discipline/stream or the college available to him as the open merit candidate will have to be allotted to the candidate who came to be selected under the reserved category against the seat having become available in that category due to selection of that particular candidate in the open merit category.
Explaining the operation of Rule 17, the court said: Supposing 'A' is a candidate entitled to admission to MD course against a seat reserved for S.C. category. 'A' on the basis of merit, however, is selected against a seat in open merit category and consequent upon his admission in the open merit category another candidate 'B' of S.C. category secures admission against the seat reserved for the S.C. category. As an open merit category candidate, the discipline/stream available to 'A' is Gastroenterology, whereas had he been selected as a reserved category candidate, stream available to him would have been Nephrology. Here 'A' will have an option to choose between Gastroenterology and Nephrology and in case he opts for Nephrology, Gastroenterology will go to 'B'. Same would be the case in allocation of a colleges to 'A' and 'B'.
The bench observed that it cannot be said that Rule 17 increases number of seats reserved for reserved categories beyond the prescribed limit of 35 per cent. It may be that in a given selection process the number of the selected candidates entitled to admission under one or the other reserved category exceeds the number of seats reserved for that category when some of them are selected in the open merit but that would not be illegal because right of selection of a reserved category candidate in open merit is guaranteed under the Constitution and specifically protected under section 10 of the Act. In Ritish R. Shaw's case, the Supreme Court has clearly held that a candidate entitled to reservation when selected against a seat in open merit shall be deemed to have been selected as an open merit candidate and will no longer be treated as candidate selected against seats reserved for reserved categories. Question of imbalancing the percentage of quota therefore, does not arise. Whenever pursuant to a selection process the number of candidates belonging to a reserved category is more than the seats reserved for that category the reason should be that the extra candidates have secured admission against seats in open merit and therefore, cease to be taken as reserved category candidates. This needs to be understood. With these observations, the bench held that the contentions of the petitioner raised in this PIL were not well-founded and the petition had no merit and dismissed. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
