Delhi High Court
Noor Dhaliwal vs Union Of India And Ors on 23 September, 2016
$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 23.09.2016
+ W.P.(C) 7455/2016 & CM Nos.33649/2016, 30650/2016 (for
interim directions)
NOOR DHALIWAL ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in the case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajiv Bakshi,
Ms. Bhanita Patowary and Mr. Ayush Chourasia,
Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Ms. Manisha Saroha,
Mr. Shivam Chanana, Mr Priyanka Sinha and Ms.
Shivangi Sinha, Advocates for respondent Nos.1, 5 and
6.
Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC with Ms. Pratishtha Vij,
Advocates for respondent No.2.
Ms. Anita Sahani, Advocate for respondent No.3.
Mr. T.Singhdev with Ms. Puja Sarkar,
Ms. Biakthansangi and Mr. TarunVerma, Advocates for
respondent No.4.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
23.09.2016
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL)
1. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.5 vide
Diary No.252040 dated 23.09.2016. The Registry is directed to place
the same on record. A copy of the same has been produced in Court
for perusal.
2. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in
not making the reservation policy for defence category, as applicable
to undergraduate medical programmes (MBBS/BDS). It is contended
that there is a uniform reservation policy of the Ministry of Home
Affairs, as has been referred to in the Communication dated
11.07.2016 of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
3. It is contended that by Clause 6.1.2 of the Brochure, issued by
respondent No.3, reservation has been provided for
B.Tech./M.Tech/B.Arch./Professional Programmes as also for B.Sc.,
Nursing. It is contended that similar reservation has not been
provided for MBBS/BDS courses for defence personnel.
4. Learned counsel appearing for Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha
University submits that out of the four colleges, which are subject
matter of the present petition, i.e. (i) Delhi Municipal Corporation
Medical College (Hindu Rao Hospital), (ii) Dr. Baba Saheb
Ambedkar Medical College, (iii) Army College of Medical Sciences
and (iv) Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) & Safdarjung
Hospital, the first three are under the Delhi Government and the fourth
is under the Central Government, though all are affiliated to the said
University. It is contended that for the three colleges under the Delhi
Government, the recommendation of the Ministry of Home Affairs,
by communication dated 11.07.2016 has been accepted and
reservation has been granted for defence category in terms of the said
letter. Insofar as VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital is concerned, since
the same is under the Central Government, it is for the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare to consider the request of the Ministry of
Home Affairs and grant reservation.
5. On 15.09.2016, counsel for the Respondent Union of India had
contended that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was still to
take a decision about the grant of reservation or otherwise. By order
dated 15.09.2016, this Court had directed that the counseling for the
seats covered under the 5% reservation quota for the defence
personnel wards be deferred till the next date.
6. Subsequently, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent
No.3 University contending that by the time the order was passed by
this Court on 15.09.2016, certain admissions had already taken place.
A table indicating the number of seats that had been filled up has been
incorporated in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit.
7. The counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.5 Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare indicates that the Principal of VMMC &
Safdarjung Hospital, by letter dated 06.09.2016, had requested that
5% reservation be carved out for the defence personnel. In view of
the letter of the Principal, the matter was referred to Medical
Education Policy Division of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
for taking a decision on the said issue.
8. It is further contended that as per the Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare, introduction of 5% horizontal reservation for
defence personnel in MBBS course in 85% State Quota seats in
VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital requires consultation with Ministry of
Human Resource & Development and Ministry of Law and since this
consultative work would take time and the admission process is
required to be closed by 30.09.2016 for the academic session 2016-17,
it was found not feasible to introduce the reservation for the current
academic year.
9. Further. the admission brochure for the academic session 2016-
17 was issued by the respondent No.3 sometime in January 2016. The
said admission brochure clearly spells out as to the courses in which
there is reservation and the courses for which there is no reservation
for the defence category.
10. The petitioner has filed the present petition on 20.08.2016. As
per the directions of the Supreme Court, the last date for admission in
medical courses is 30.09.2016. The petitioner is not able to show that
the reservation policy has to be applied for all colleges. Merely
because the Ministry of Home Affairs has recommended that there
should be reservation, would not, ipso facto, imply that it is
mandatory for the colleges to have reservation, though they would
have to abide by the directives of their parent Ministry.
11. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, on receipt of the
recommendation of the Ministry of Home, has stated that the
consultative process would have to be commenced prior to carving out
the 5% reservation for the defence personnel. There can be no
automatic reservation created for the defence category till the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare takes a decision. As per the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare, a consultative process is required with the
Ministry of Human Resource Development and Ministry of Law
which is likely to take time entire process may take some time which
may delay the admission process. Since the letter of the Ministry of
Home Affairs is dated 11.07.2016, the fact that the Ministry of Health
& Family Welfare requires some reasonable time to take a decision
prior to carving out a reservation is not unreasonable. The said
respondent cannot be faulted with for not having reservation for the
academic session 2016-17 for the VMMC & Safdarjung Hospital.
12. In my view, there is no merit in the petition. The writ petition
is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order dated 15.09.2016 stands
vacated and the respondents are at liberty to proceed with the
counselling. The respondent - Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
shall consider the recommendations of the Ministry of Home and take
a decision thereon expeditiously so that if they decide to have
reservation for the defence personnel, the same can be implemented at
least for the next academic session.
13. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
SEPTEMBER 23, 2016
st
