Dr. Jaydev vs State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

Dr. Jaydev vs State Of Kerala on 22 May, 2024

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

   WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2024 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1946

                    WP(C) NO. 17057 OF 2012

PETITIONER:
          DR. JAYADEV K., AGED 26 YEARS
          S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN, POURNAMI, PILICODE P.O.,
          KARAPATH, KASARAGOD DIST-671353.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
          SRI.G.GIREESH

RESPONDENTS:
     1    STATE OF KERALA,
          REP.BY THE SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
     2    THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
          DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION MEDICAL COLLEGE
          P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
     3    THE PRINCIPAL,
          GOVT. MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM.
     4    THE PRINCIPAL,
          ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, PARIYARAM,
          KANNUR-670503.
     5    SHRI.V.SARATH, VISWAVIHAR,
          KOORATTIKADU, MANNAR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DIST.
     6    THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMON ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
          SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
          BY ADVS.
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER
          SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

OTHER PRESENT:
          SMT. K.M. RASHMI, GOVT. PLEADER

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                       2
W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012



                    HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
               -------------------------------
                           W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012
               -------------------------------
                 Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2024


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner had applied for the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma (Orthopaedics) 2012 admissions. In the common entrance examination, the petitioner stood at rank 628 and the party respondent - 5th respondent, stood at 660. Since the petitioner did not get admission in the Government Medical College in Government Quota during the first allotment, the petitioner joined the 4th respondent self-financing medical college, as evidenced by Ext. P3 dated 04.07.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the subsequent notification at Ext. P6 dated 09.07.2012, there were vacant seats in the Government college and the petitioner was eligible for getting accommodated. Therefore, as stated in Ext. P6 notification, the petitioner obtained a No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 09.07.2012 from the 4th respondent college, where he was admitted and attended the spot allotment on 12.07.2012. However, since the petitioner was not admitted to the 3 W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012 3rd respondent college to which he had sought admission, the petitioner submitted the letter at Ext. P8 dated 12.07.2012 seeking for explanations in that regard. In reply to the same, the petitioner received Ext. P9 dated 12.07.2012 issued by the second respondent herein, stating that the 4th respondent has informed that the said institution is not interested to allow any government allocation of seats after 5 p.m. on 09.07.2012 as specified in GO(Rt) No.2183/12/H&FWD dated 02.07.2012. The petitioner has challenged the said proceedings by filing the present writ petition. The first and second respondents originally filed a statement dated 19.09.2012 producing Annexures I and II. Annexure I is a notification dated 10.07.2012, which according to the Government disentitles the petitioner from making any claim for admission to the PG course. Annexure II is a Government Order dated 02.07.2012, which is referred to in Ext. P9; as per which the last date for admission to Government merit seats in self-financing colleges was prescribed.

2. In such circumstances, the petitioner has amended the present writ petition by producing Annexures I and II as Exts.P10 and P11. The prayers raised in the amended writ petition reads as under:-

W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012

"1. Writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside Ext.P.9 after calling for the records leading to it.

1(A) Writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside Ext.P.10 and Ext.P.11 are unconscionable and arbitrary; 1(B) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to transfer the petitioner from 4th respondent College to the 3rd respondent college in place of 5th respondent with retrospective effect and refund to the petitioner the excess amount of fee paid by him; 1(C) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to continue at 4th respondent College, however, on payment of Govt. rate of fee and on refund of fee already paid at higher rate so far.

2. Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider admitting the petitioner in 3rd respondent College for Diploma in Orthopaedics for 2012 in place of 5th respondent.

3. Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider cancelling the admission given to the 5th respondent to accommodate the petitioner.

4. Declare that the second respondent is liable to admit the petitioner for Diploma orthpaedics in 3rd respondent college for 2012 in place of 5th respondent and further the petitioner is entitled to be admitted in 3rd respondent college for Diploma in Orthopaedics for 2012;

5. Such other reliefs that the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Award cost of this petition."

3. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the 5th respondent, in the matter. In the said counter affidavit, the 5th respondent also pressed his claim on the basis of Exts. P10 and P11, originally produced by the Government.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 3 and 6 as well as the learned counsel representing the 5th respondent.

5. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner had raised his claim for admission to the Post Graduate course on the basis of the notification at Ext. P6., which was issued on 09.07.2012. The subsequent Government Orders are Exts. P10 and P11. Exts. P10, issued by the Director of Medical Education is dated 10.07.2012 and any change made in the criteria for admission after the original notification cannot have any legal sanctity. The petitioner also challenges Ext. P11 dated 02.07.2012 by contending that the same is not reflected in or referred to in Ext. P6. The learned Government Pleader refers to Exts. P10 and P11 and submits that in so far as the spot admission, pursuant Ext. P6 was on 12.07.2012, the same is to be governed by the norms as amended by Exts. P10 6 W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012 and P11. The learned counsel for the 5th respondent also relies on Ext. P11 to contend that by virtue of Ext. P11 dated 02.07.2012, there cannot be any admission to self-financing medical colleges in the Government Quota. He also pointed out that Ext. P11 Government Order specifically states that after 5 p.m. on 09.07.2012, there cannot be any admission effected to the self- financing medical colleges in the Government merit quota seat.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent.

7. It is true that the petitioner sought admission to the Post Graduate degree course pursuant to Ext. P6 notification dated 09.07.2012. In Ext. P6 notification, it is true that all candidates finding a place in the rank list published by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations were entitled to attend the counselling. It was only that the candidate who had already joined another college had to obtain an NOC. It is on that basis that the petitioner obtained the NOC at Ext. P7 dated 09.07.2012. However, it is to be noticed that on the date of issuance of the NOC on 09.07.2012, the Government 7 W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012 Order at Ext. P11 dated 02.07.2012 was already issued. In the said Government Order it is clearly laid down as under:-

"Government have examined the case and are pleased to order that the last date for admission to PG Degree/Diplorna to Government Merit Quota seats in Seif Financing Medical Colleges will bé 09.07.2012. The students who are allotted to Government Merit Quota seats in Self Financing Medical Colleges will report before the Principal of the institution concerned before 5 PM on 09.07.2012. The Government Merit Quota seats still remaining vacant after the above cut off cate shall be filled by the Managements concerned as Management Quota seats."

A perusal of Ext. P11 makes it clear that the last date for admission to PG Degree/Diploma in the Government merit quota as far as self- financing medical colleges are concerned, will be on 09.07.2012. The Government Order has also specifically pointed out that on 09.07.2012 itself, the claim for the Government merit quota seats in the self-financing medical colleges has to be made by 5 p.m. The Government merit quota seats, which remain vacant thereafter, can be filled up by the managements, as management quota seats. In the light of Ext. P11, the NOC issued at Ext.P7 cannot have any validity. It is true that the petitioner was permitted to participate in the counselling on 12.17.2012 on the basis of the NOC. However, 8 W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012 even the counselling was carried out on 12.07.2012. Prior to that Ext. P10 was issued on 10.07.2012 clarifying that candidates who had already joined self-financing medical colleges would not be eligible for attending the counselling. It is to be noticed that the last date for admission in Government merit quota seats in self-financing medical colleges was prescribed as early as on 02.07.2012. The said condition appears to have been omitted in Ext .P6. It is only this omission, which was clarified through Ext.P10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has specifically raised a contention that once Ext. P7 is issued on 09.07.2012, the conditions therein cannot be modified subsequently. In my considered opinion, but for Ext. P11 Government Order dated 02.07.2012, the said contention would have been attractive. In such circumstances, the said contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only to be recorded and rejected.

8. On the whole, I do not find any illegality in Ext. P9, issued by the 2nd respondent. The challenge raised against Exts. P10 and P11 Government Orders are also be turned down for the reasons stated above.

W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012

9. Hence I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is only to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this writ petition fails and will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE Skk//24.05.2024 10 W.P.(C) No.17057 of 2012 APPENDIX OF W.P.(C)No.17057 OF 2012 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF BACHELOR OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY ISSUED BY THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY DATED 12.10.2011 EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION CARD BEARING ROLL NO.60197 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.B2/9910/2012/DME DATED 4.7.2012 EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF ADMISSION CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF FEE RECEIPT NO.21042 DATED 6.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.B2/9910/2012/DME DATED 9.7.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF COURSE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT NpBe 2364/12/ACME DATED 9.7.2012 EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.7.2012 EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF REPY NO.X N Dis counselling/DME/2012 DATED 12.1.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF EXT.P8 EXHIBIT P10 : A TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.B2/9910/2012/DME DATED 10.07.2012 EXHIBIT P11 : A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) 2183/2012/H&FW DATED 2.7.2012 EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.6.2013 EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2013