KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI, J. - Respondent-Government started a Nursing Management Course and, vide letter dated 5.4.1995, laid down the conditions/qualifications for admission to such course.
Petitioner was one of the candidates but was declined admission which compelled her to file this Constitutional petition with the prayer that "a Writ may kindly be issued declaring the final selection of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 be discriminatory, arbitrary, unlawful, without jurisdiction and having no force under the law". It was further prayed that "respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the list of selected candidates................................. ".
2. In the comments submitted under the signatures of Principal, the . Claim of the petitioner is denied. It is also denied that the criteria/policy for admission was violated. It is claimed that there were only 15 posts for the Punjab and, according to the merit list prepared by the respondent- Government, petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 106. The admission granted to respondent No. 5 is explained on the ground that same was done under the orders of NIRC. It is stated that name of respondent No. 6 has been struck off due to pregnancy. The selection of respondents Nos.
7 and 8 is defended by claiming that this is in accordance with Government policy.
3. More or less the same arguments have been repeated. It is not denied that one of the conditions laid down in the memo, dated 5.4.1995 (Annex "A") is that "seniority-cwn-fitness will not be ignored."
Learned Additional Advocate General has shown the original record which contains the merit list prepared by the Government and which shows that petitioner's name is at serial No. 106. He has also stated that in the last three ACRs petitioner managed only "average" tor two years although the requirement was that the performance should be "good" for all the three years. The criteria adopted by the respondent-Government cannot be said to be unwarranted or not conducive to merit. Petitioner has not denied that the serial number in the merit list was 106 as against 15 seats which were to be filled up. In the circumstances, there is no justification to interfere in this matter and to direct admission of the petitioner to the course.
4. For the above reasons, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their on costs.