Dr. L. Ramamohan Vs. the Registrar, University of Health Sciences and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- orderm.n. rao, j.1. the grievance of the petitioner is that he is an in-service candidate belonging to b.c. 'a' group of the backward classes and although he secured rank no. 357 in the entrance examination for admission to post-graduate courses, he was not given admission in the subject 'gynaecology and obstetrics' but the third respondent, also an in-service candidate but belonging to b.c. 'd' (sic. 'b') group who secured rank no. 430, was selected against that quota for the academic year 1995-1996. he also complains that first, the candidates belonging to backward class among the in-service candidates should be selected and then 30 only claims of the other categories should be taken up.2. we are not inclined to admit the writ petition for reasons more than one. the selection was over in the month of may 1996 and classes commenced on 3-6-1996 but this writ petition was filed on 12-9-1996 and there was no convincing reason as to why the petitioner waited for such a long time. although by convention, a time limit of six months from the date of cause of action is considered a reasonable period to file a writ petition, in cases concerning admissions to academic courses, that too professional courses at the post-graduate level in medicine and engineering, 'the six months period' loses its relevance. admitting the writ petition now would result in disturbing the careers of others.3. we must also mention that a division bench of this court, to which one of us (m.n. rao, j.,) was a party, in dr. v. sadananda rao v. secretary to govt., a.p. h.m. & f. w. dept., 1995(2) alt 493(d.b.). had taken the view that in respect of each of the four groups 45 of backward classes - a, b, c and d - reservation should be made as per merit and interpreting guideline 3 to rule 3(i) of the rules governing admissions to medical colleges, the division bench held that in respect of seats earmarked for the backward classes, there should be separate lists with regard to each of the sub-categories separately in degree and diploma courses.4. the total number of seats in the discipline of obstetrics and gynaecology in the andhra university area, with which the present writ petition is concerned, is 14 and out of which 4 are reserved for backward classes. the distribution of seats among the backward classes is as follows:b.c. 'a' - one seatb.c. 'b' - two seatsb.c. 'd' - one seat5. 15%of the 14 seats are reserved for in-service candidates, which works out to two. there is further reservation in favour of backward classes but without any sub-reservation in favour of any of the four groups amongst them in respect of the in-service quota. this works out to one seat in favour of in-service backward classes. this one seat to which the petitioner is laying claim has already gone to the third respondent who also belongs to b.c. 'b' group. although this appears to be an anomaly, viewed in the context that as the petitioner and the third respondent both being in-service candidates and the 20 petitioner having secured rank no. 357 and the third respondent 430, this consequence is inevitable, in the distribution of seats in favour of the backward classes, the number of seats that should be allotted to persons belonging to b.c. 'b' category must be 2 and for category 'a' only 1 seat. since b.c. 'a' seat has already gone to the fourth respondent (who secured rank no. 53) on the basis of merit, the petitioner cannot lay any claim for that seat. equally he cannot claim the seat allotted to the third respondent because inevitably persons belonging to b.c. 'b' category must get 2 seats arid among the persons belonging to that category, the third respondent secured higher marks and the accident of the third respondent being an in-service candidate should not result in the 30 depletion of the separate reservation in favour of b.c. 'b' category.6. a further aspect that should not be lost sight of is that there is no separate category-wise reservation among backward classes with respect to in-service quota. rule 3(2) of the rules of admission is in the following terms:'3(2): 15% of seats in clinical subjects i.e., in medicine, surgery, obstetrics and gynaecology groups and 30% of the seats in non-clinical subjects in each group for degree and diploma separately are reserved for in-service candidates in each category under service quota; candidates selected on merit in respective categories shall be counted against service quota. service rendered shall be calculated as on 15-6-1995.' 7. from a reading of the above rule, it is clear that no separate category-wise reservation among backward classes in the in-service quota is contemplated.8. the writ petition, therefore, fails and accordingly it is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.N. Rao, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is an in-service candidate belonging to B.C. 'A' group of the backward classes and although he secured rank No. 357 in the entrance examination for admission to Post-graduate courses, he was not given admission in the subject 'Gynaecology and Obstetrics' but the third respondent, also an in-service candidate but belonging to B.C. 'D' (sic. 'B') group who secured rank No. 430, was selected against that quota for the academic year 1995-1996. He also complains that first, the candidates belonging to backward class among the in-service candidates should be selected and then 30 only claims of the other categories should be taken up.

2. We are not inclined to admit the writ petition for reasons more than one. The selection was over in the month of May 1996 and classes commenced on 3-6-1996 but this writ petition was filed on 12-9-1996 and there was no convincing reason as to why the petitioner waited for such a long time. Although by convention, a time limit of six months from the date of cause of action is considered a reasonable period to file a writ petition, in cases concerning admissions to academic courses, that too professional courses at the post-graduate level in Medicine and Engineering, 'the six months period' loses its relevance. Admitting the writ petition now would result in disturbing the careers of others.

3. We must also mention that a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (M.N. Rao, J.,) was a party, in Dr. V. Sadananda Rao v. Secretary to Govt., A.P. H.M. & F. W. Dept., 1995(2) ALT 493(D.B.). had taken the view that in respect of each of the four groups 45 of backward classes - A, B, C and D - reservation should be made as per merit and interpreting guideline 3 to Rule 3(i) of the rules governing admissions to medical colleges, the Division Bench held that in respect of seats earmarked for the Backward classes, there should be separate lists with regard to each of the sub-categories separately in degree and diploma courses.

4. The total number of seats in the discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Andhra University area, with which the present writ petition is concerned, is 14 and out of which 4 are reserved for backward classes. The distribution of seats among the backward classes is as follows:

B.C. 'A' - one seatB.C. 'B' - two seatsB.C. 'D' - one seat

5. 15%of the 14 seats are reserved for in-service candidates, which works out to two. There is further reservation in favour of backward classes but without any sub-reservation in favour of any of the four groups amongst them in respect of the in-service quota. This works out to one seat in favour of in-service backward classes. This one seat to which the petitioner is laying claim has already gone to the third respondent who also belongs to B.C. 'B' group. Although this appears to be an anomaly, viewed in the context that as the petitioner and the third respondent both being in-service candidates and the 20 petitioner having secured Rank No. 357 and the third respondent 430, this consequence is inevitable, in the distribution of seats in favour of the backward classes, the number of seats that should be allotted to persons belonging to B.C. 'B' category must be 2 and for category 'A' only 1 seat. Since B.C. 'A' seat has already gone to the fourth respondent (who secured rank No. 53) on the basis of merit, the petitioner cannot lay any claim for that seat. Equally he cannot claim the seat allotted to the third respondent because inevitably persons belonging to B.C. 'B' category must get 2 seats arid among the persons belonging to that category, the third respondent secured higher marks and the accident of the third respondent being an in-service candidate should not result in the 30 depletion of the separate reservation in favour of B.C. 'B' category.

6. A further aspect that should not be lost sight of is that there is no separate category-wise reservation among backward classes with respect to in-service quota. Rule 3(2) of the Rules of Admission is in the following terms:

'3(2): 15% of seats in Clinical subjects i.e., in Medicine, Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynaecology groups and 30% of the seats in non-clinical subjects in each group for Degree and Diploma separately are reserved for in-service candidates in each category under service quota; candidates selected on merit in respective categories shall be counted against service quota. Service rendered shall be calculated as on 15-6-1995.'

7. From a reading of the above rule, it is clear that no separate category-wise reservation among backward classes in the in-service quota is contemplated.

8. The writ petition, therefore, fails and accordingly it is dismissed.