High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 09 SHI CK 0001

Karan Mattoo vs Himachal Pradesh University And Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 4 September 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J · Vivek Singh Thakur, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 1999 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 405 words

Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.

1.

Reply stands filed, which is taken on record.

2.

The petitioner claims himself to be a Kashmiri migrant, which in terms of Item No. 11(vii) of the prospectus, Annexure P-2 ‘means a person

forced to leave Jammu and Kashmir due to terrorism and forced to reside or rehabilitate in other parts of the country’.

In Medical/BDS colleges situated in the State, one seat is reserved in MBBS course, whereas, two in BDS course. In order to seek admission against

the said seats, a candidate is required to produce the certificate on the prescribed format Appendix A-10 to the prospectus duly issued by the

competent authority i.e., District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner of the area where on migration he/she is residing.

3.

The grouse of the petitioner as brought to this Court in this writ petition, in a nut-shell, is that though he is a Kashmiri migrant, however, denied

admission against the seats reserved for this category in MBBS/BDS course. His further complaint is that one seat reserved for this category in BDS

course has been de-reserved and shifted to the MBBS course and now two candidates have been admitted from this category in MBBS course,

whereas, one in BDS course.

4.

Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, denies this part of the petitioner’s case as according to him, only one

candidate has been admitted in MBBS course and two in BDS course as per the Roster of reservation in the prospectus.

5.

Otherwise also, in the online application, Annexure P-8, the petitioner had sought admission from the category general (un-reserved), as is apparent

from the entries against column No. 31 of this document. No doubt, against column No. 19, he has claimed himself to be a child of J&K migrant,

however, he never sought admission from this category. Interestingly enough, the certificate Annexure P-3 reveals that he is permanent resident of

J&K State.

However, this certificate is not in consonance with Appendix A-10 to the prospectus, as nothing has come therein that he has been declared J&K

migrant due to terrorism and residing or rehabilitated in some other part of the country. On this score also, he is not eligible to seek admission against

the seat(s) reserved for the category of migrants of J&K.

6.

We, therefore, find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.