Judgment:
C.O.C.P.No.2945 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.O.C.P.No.2945 of 2013 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 11.2.2014 Gurpreet Kaur Billing PETITIONER VERSUS Dr.Darshan Singh Sidhu RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri R.S.Manhas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Karan Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner's grievance is that the order of this Court has not been complied with.
If the order dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Writ Court is to be seen, then it merely negated the stand of the respondent by which the petitioner had been held ineligible on account of her having qualified 10+2 from Chandigarh.
The petitioner was to be considered for admission to the B.D.S.CouRs.subject to her meeting other eligibility conditions prescribed by the respondent/Institute.
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been granted admission to the B.D.S.couRs.and the grievance of the petitioner now centres around the plea that she was entitled to be admitted against the seats reserved for wards of defence personnel, but now she has been accommodated against a seat Dass Ghanshyam 2014.02.17 16:30 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh C.O.C.P.No.2945 of 2013 -2- intended for NRIs.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner could not have been given the seat meant for wards of defence personnel since she was lesser in merit than the person who has been so admitted against this category.
A comparative chart has been given in the reply and it indicates that the candidate who has been admitted against the quota for which the petitioner is claiming, has secured 94.8303% marks, whereas the petitioner has secured only 66.303% marks.
The petitioner now contends that she was entitled to admission as per the preference she had indicated which has been violated.
In short, the case of the petitioner is that the terms of the prospectus and the mode of prescription have been violated.
If that be so, then I am of the opinion that there is no cause made out by the petitioner for initiating proceedings against the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act.
The petition is therefore, dismissed leaving the petitioner with her remedies under the law.
(MAHESH GROVER) February 11, 2014 JUDGE GD Dass Ghanshyam 2014.02.17 16:30 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh