http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: NISHANT PURI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/12/1998

BENCH: K. Venkataswami, M. Jagannadha Rao.

JUDGMENT:

D E R

       Special leave granted

       Heard counsel for the parties.

       The short question that arises for consideration  in this  appeal  is  whether a State Government employe lent on deputation (at the request of the State Government  employee on  health ground) to a department of the Central Government can be considered as a ’serving Central Government employee" within the meaning of the eligibility clause as provided  by Himachal  Pradesh  University  in  a combined prospectus for admission for M.B.B.S./B.D.S/B.A.M.S courses.

       The  relevant  clauses  in  the  Prospectus  read as follows ::-

       A bona fide Himachal is a person who  has  permanent home  in Himachal Pradesh and includes a person who has been residing in Himachal Pradesh for a period not less  than  15 years or a person who has permanent home in Himachal Pradesh but  on  account  of  his  occupation  he  is living outside Himachal Pradesh."

Eligibility -

       "(i)    Candidates who have compete for admission to Indira Gandhi  Medical  Collegae.    Shimla  (M.B.B.S),  Dr. Rajendra Prasad  Govt.    Medical  College  Kangra, Himachal Pradesh  Government  Dental  College  and  Hospital   Shimla (B.D.S.).  Or Free seats available in various Private Sental Colleges  and  Medical Colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh and  Rajiv  Gandhi  Government  Ayurvedic  College,  Paprola should have passed atleast two of the following examinations from  the  recognised  Schools  or  Colleges  affiliated  to ICSE/CBSE and HP Board  of  Shool  Education  or  equivalent Boards/University established by law in India.

(a)     Middle or Equivalent.

(b)     Matric or Equivalent.

(c)     10+2 or Equivalent.

(ii)    The  bona fids Himachal students who are admitted to Navodaya Schools situated in Himachal Pradesh and  who  pass

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Matric  or  +2 examination under the exchange programme from other Navodaya Schools in the Country shall also be eligible for admission to the above courses.

(iii)   The  Wards  of  Defence  personnels/serving  Central Govarment employees who are bona fide  Himachalis  are  also exempted  from the condition of passing two classes from the Stata of Himachal Pradesh."

       Stated briefly, the relevant facts of the  case  are as under.

       The  appellant  herein submitted his application for combined entrance test  for  admission  to  the  first  year M.B.B.S.  course for the year 1997-98.  The third respondent herein  after  a  perusal  of  the  appellant’s  application informed him that he was not  elialble  for  submitting  the application  inasmuch  as he had not passed two out of three examination mentioned in the  eligibility  clause  from  the school situated in Himachal Pradesh, In fact, the appellants mother,   a   Himachal  Pradesh  State  Government  employee requested for sending her on deputation to Chandigarh  Union Territory on  health  ground.   Accordingly, she was sent on deputation  to   Chandigarh   Education   Department   since 21.12.1988.   Alongwith his mother, the appellant also moved to Chandigarh and pursued  his  studies  there  since  1988. Therefore,  he could not satisfy the eligibility requirement as mentioned above.  Though the appellant initially  claimed exeption  under the category that he is the son of a defence personnel, that was not pursued in view of the fact that his father was not a bona tide Himachal The alternative claim of the appellant was that his  mother  is  a  Himachal  Pradesh State  Government  employee  and  she  having  been  sent on deputation to work at Chandigarh Education Department,  must be treated  as  a "serving Central Government employee".  In that case exemption contemplated under Clause (iii)  of  the eligibility clause  would  come to his rescue.  This was not accepted by the respondents.    Though,  on  merits  he  was entitled  to get admission, he was denied admission for lack of eligibility for admission,

       Aggrieved  by  the  denial of admission to the first year M.B.S.S course, 1997,  the  appellant  moved  the  High Court for appropriate writ to enable him to pursue the first year M.S.S.S.  course.

       A  Division  Bench  of  the  High Court rejected the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant  that  the mother  of the appellant comes under the category of serving Central Glovenment employee as contemplated in Clause  (iii) of eligibility clause.  The High Court observed that ’she is only  a State Government employee working on deputation with the Central Government and she cannot be considered to be  a Central  Government  employee.’  Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

       Aggrieved by  the  order  of  the  High  Court,  the preterit appeal by special leave has been filed.

       The   learned   Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the appellant placing strong reliance  on  a  judgment  of  this Court in  Meenakshi  Malik  vs.   University of Delhi & Ors. [(1989) 3 SCC 112] submitted that in the light of the  ratio laid  down by this Court in the said judgment, the mother of the appellant  must  be  deemed  to  be  a  serving  Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

Government  employee  satisfying  the  requirement of Clause (iii) of eligibility clause.

       On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State  of  Himachal  Pradesh, the University and the private 4th respondent argued that having regard to  the  scheme  of the  Prospectus and the intention of the eligibility clause, the claim of the appellant that he is the son of  a  serving Central  Government  employee  who  is  a bona tide Himachal cannot be accepted.  The learned counsel also submitted that the judgment in Meenakshi Malik case (supra) must be lfined to the facts of  that  case  and  the  principle  laid  down therein   cannot  be  pressed  into  service  in  all  cases irrespective of the facts of the case.

       We have considered the rival submissions.    At  the outset   we  have  set  out  the  relevant  clauses  in  the Prospectus.  The  purpose  behind  the  clause  relating  to eligibility  appears to be that bona tide Himachali students should be given preference over others.   In  achieving  the above  object  care has been taken to protect those students whose parents were obliged to move out of Himachal State  on account  of  exigencies  of  service, by reason of which the children also moved out of State.  In the case on  hand-  it is  an admitted fact that the mother of the appellant though a State Government employee went on deputation  on  her  own request  on  health  ground  to  work  as an employee of the Central government.  In view of the fact that she  has  been allowed to continue on deputation for nearly 10 years and is still  maintaining her lien with the State government can it be said  that  she  is  a  Central  Government  employee  as contemplated in  Clause (iii) of the eligibility clause.  We are of the view that such an interpretation would go against the  spirit  of  the  eligibility  clause  provided  in  the Prospectus.

       The  reliance placed on Meenakshi Malik case (supra) will will not help the appellant, as this  Court,  in  Anant Madaan vs.   State  of  Haryana  &  Ors.  [(1995) 2 SCC 135] while distinguishing the observed as follows :-

"11.   The  appellants  drew  our attention to a decision of this Court in Meenakshi Malik vs.  University of Delhi where the father of the candidate was in government service.    He was  posted  by the Government outside India, As the parents were compelled to go outside India, the children  were  also required to  go  with  their parents.  This Court considered this as a hard case.  It held that the qualifying  condition that  the  candidate should have received the last two years of education in a school in Delhi, should be relaxed in that case as the candidate was compelled to  leave  India  for  a foreign  country  by reason of the posting of her parents by the Government to such foreign country.  The Court  observed that  there  was  no  real  choice  in the matter for such a student and hence the rigour of  the  condition  prescribing that  the  last two years of education should be received in Delhi should be relaxed in that case.

12.  None of the appellants who  are  before  us  are  in  a position similar to that of the appellant in the above case. In fact,  the  parents  of  Anant Madaan, Bharat B.  Dua and Shalini Jain are in Haryana.  In the case of  Nandita  Kalra the  parents  have  voluntarily taken employment outside the State of Haryana.  They are not in the same situatiofore  as the parents  of  Meenakshi Malik.  Therefore, the relaxation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

which was given by this Court in the case of Meenakshi Malik cannot be given to any of the appellants before us."

                               (Emphasis supplied)

       We  have  already  noticed  that  the  mother of the appellant went on deputation of her own volition and not out of compulsion or exigencies of service.

       Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant on Meenakshi Malik case (supra) is of no avail.  The High Court also  took  the  same  view  in rejecting  the  contention  put  forward  on  behalf  of the appellant.

       In the circumstances, we do not find  any  merit  in this  appeal  and the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition of the appellants  The  appeal  fails  and  is dismissed.  No costs.