Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Dennies Paul.L on 13 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 1 2025:KER:60429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1350 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.29792 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
3 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
KERALA, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
EXAMINATIONS, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.4 IN WPC:
1 DENNIES PAUL.L,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. LOURDA SWAMY, SORAPARA, KOZHIPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN
- 678557
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 2 2025:KER:60429
2 FAIZAL.P.P,
NURSING OFFICER, NMCH, MEDICAL COLLEGE. P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
SRI.M.G.SREEJITH
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 14.07.2025 ALONG WITH
WA NO.1365 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 13.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 3 2025:KER:60429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1365 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.29792 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DENNIES PAUL L,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LOURDA SWAMY, SORAPARA, KOZHIPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678557
BY ADVS.
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
KERALA, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
EXAMINATION 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SHANTHI
NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 4 2025:KER:60429
4 SHRI FAIZAL P P
NURSING OFFICER, NMCH,
MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, Sr. G.P.
SRI.M.G SREEJITH
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 14.07.2025 ALONG WITH
WA NO.1350 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 13.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 5 2025:KER:60429
COMMON JUDGMENT "CR"
Muralee Krishna, J.
The appellants in W.A. No.1350 of 2025 are respondents 1 to 3, and the appellant in W.A. No.1365 of 2025 is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 29792 of 2024. These writ appeals are filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the respective appellants, challenging the judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. Since the issue to be decided in these writ appeals is the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The writ petitioner, who is working as a Nursing Officer Grade-I at District Hospital, Palakkad, appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), 2024, for admission to the MBBS course and secured rank No.260988 at the National level and rank No.19109 in the State level. The 3 rd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examination, published Ext.P2 prospectus for admission to the professional degree course for the year 2024. Clause 5.2.10 (i) of the prospectus provides for the Allopathy nurse quota for the MBBS course. During previous years W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 6 2025:KER:60429 also, the writ petitioner participated in the entrance examination. In the rank list published during 2023, he secured rank 17033. In that year the rank list was published holding nursing quota as a class. But in the year 2024, a categorised list of nursing quota candidates has been published by the 3 rd respondent. As per Ext.P5 final rank list published by the 3 rd respondent, the writ petitioner was placed in the third place, though he secured higher marks than the candidates placed above him. Challenging the categorisation within the nursing quota as a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner approached this Court with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
"i) to declare that priority mentioned in Clause 5.2.10(i) of Ext. P2 is highly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be struck down;
ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P2 and to quash priority mentioned in Clause 5.2.10(i) of the same;
iii) to declare that priority can be applied only when ranks of the BSc. (Nursing) candidate and GNM candidate are equal;
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 7 2025:KER:60429
iv) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the seat for MBBS (2024) under Allopathy Nursing quota as he secured high mark among other candidates under the said quota;
v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to allot a seat for MBBS to the petitioner under Allopathy Nursing quota as he secured high mark among the candidates in the said quota;
vi) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and to quash the original of the same to the extent it push back the petitioner to the 3rd place"
3. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival submissions made at the Bar, and the pleadings in the writ petition, by holding that the order of priority will come into play only when candidates have secured the equal ranks, allowed the writ petition directing the appellants in W.A. No.1350 of 2025 to admit the writ petitioner to the MBBS course against a seat that may be vacant in respect of 2024 NEET examination and if no such seat is vacant, create a supernumerary seat to admit the writ petitioner and allow him to take up the study of second semester onwards. The writ petitioner was further directed to pay the entire W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 8 2025:KER:60429 fees for both semesters. When respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition filed W.A. No.1350 of 2025 challenging the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner filed W.A. No.1365 of 2025, contending that since the admission for the year 2024 was closed by 30.09.2024, the direction to admit him in that year is impractical and not implementable. He contended that the relief ought to have been moulded by the learned Single Judge to give admission in the year 2025.
4. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for appellants in W.A. No.1350 of 2025, who are the respondents 1 to 3 in W.A. No.1365 of 2025 and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent in W.A. No.1350 of 2025, who is the appellant in W.A. No.1365 of 2025. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent in both the writ appeals.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would argue that the writ petitioner participated in the entrance examination for the quota reserved for nurses by virtue of Ext.P2 prospectus. As per Clause 5.2.10(i) of Ext.P2, one seat for the MBBS course was reserved for nurses in regular service in the order of priority, that W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 9 2025:KER:60429 is, (a) Nursing Officer with B.Sc Nursing qualification, (b) Nursing Officer with General Nursing and midwifery qualification, and (c) Junior Public Health Nurse. The writ petitioner possesses the qualification of General Nursing and Midwifery and whereas the 2nd respondent in W.A.No.1350 of 2025, who was placed in the 1 st rank, has B.Sc Nursing qualification. According to the prospectus condition, the 2nd respondent is placed above the rank of the writ petitioner. It will not come under the mischief of a classification within a class. The learned Senior Government Pleader further argued that after participating in the examination based on Ext.P2 prospectus, the writ petitioner is estopped from contending against the conditions in the prospectus. The classification was made by the Government only to give service benefits to the employees under the Government. The learned Senior Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100] and Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2017) 4 SCC 357] in support of his arguments.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 10 2025:KER:60429 petitioner argued that in the year 2023 also, the rank list was prepared for the reserved seat for nurses, purely based on merit. In the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the issue was the denial of a seat to the failed candidates. Whereas in the case of the writ petitioner, he secured the highest rank. Since nurses are a class, subsequent classification among them is a violation of equality envisaged under the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would further submit that since the admission for the year 2024 was closed by 30.09.2024, the learned Single Judge ought to have moulded the relief to give admission to the writ petitioner in the year 2025. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Sudhir N. v. State of Kerala [(2015) 6 SCC 685], Krishna Sradha S. v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2020) 17 SCC 465] and that of this Court in Saurabh Jain (Dr.) v. State of Kerala [2011 (1) KHC 680] in support of his arguments.
7. The writ petitioner is admittedly having the qualification of General Nursing and Midwifery, and the 2 nd respondent in W.A. No.1350 of 2025 is having B.Sc nursing W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 11 2025:KER:60429 qualification. Both of them participated in the NEET Examination, 2024, for one seat reserved for nurses under the Government of Kerala. Clause 5.2.10(i) of Ext.P2 prospectus regarding the reservation of one seat to Nurse-Allopathy for the MBBS course is extracted hereunder:
"5.2.10(i) Nurse-Allopathy (NQ): One seat under this quota for MBBS course is reserved for Nurses (Allopathy) in regular service under Government of Kerala in the order of priority, a) Nursing Officer with B.Sc Nursing qualification, b) Nursing Officer with General Nursing and Midwifery qualification, c) Junior Public Health Nurse (JPHN). Candidates should upload a Service Certificate in Annexure XIV (a) from the Head of Office, stating that the candidate is a Regular Employee in the State Government Service and a registration certificate issued by the Kerala Nurses & Midwives Council to the online application. Admission will be given on the basis of the Kerala State Rank List of NEET-UG 2024 prepared by the CEE and subject to the eligibility conditions in Clause 6. The candidates who have undergone Nursing Course outside the State should obtain the Registration Certificate issued by the Nursing Council of respective States and upload to the online application (Refer Annexure III (2)."
8. In S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100] and Ashok Kumar [(2017) 4 SCC 357], the Apex Court, by referring W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 12 2025:KER:60429 to its various previous judgments, including Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [2002 (6) SCC 127], laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable.
9. In Sudhir N. [(2015) 6 SCC 685], the issue before the Apex Court was the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008 which prescribes admission to postgraduate courses solely on the basis of inter se seniority of the candidates who have taken the common entrance test for postgraduate medical education and have obtained the minimum eligibility bench mark in that test in terms of the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. By the judgment and order W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 13 2025:KER:60429 dated 30.03.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)Nos.1014 of 2009 and 2610 of 2010, it was held that the selection of in-service Medical Officers for postgraduate medical education shall be strictly on the basis of inter se seniority of the candidates who have taken the common entrance test. The said judgment and order were challenged on the ground that the State Legislature could not enact a law that would make selection for admission to the postgraduate courses dependent solely on the seniority of the in-service candidates without prescribing the minimum conditions of eligibility for the candidates concerned. The competence of the state legislature to enact Section 5(4) of the impugned legislation was also called in question on the ground that the said piece of legislation violated the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, the authority competent to do so under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. It was in that backdrop that the Apex Court held that this Court was right in holding that in as much as the provisions of Section 5(4) of the impugned enactment provide a basis for selection of candidates different from the one stipulated by the MCI Regulations, it was beyond the legislative competence W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 14 2025:KER:60429 of the State Legislature. However, this Court erred in holding that seniority of the in-service candidate will continue to play a role, provided the candidate concerned has appeared in the common entrance test and secured the minimum percentage of the marks stipulated by the regulations. The Apex Court further held that a meritorious in-service candidate cannot be denied admission only because he has an eligible senior above him, though lower in merit. Merit alone can be the basis of admission among candidates belonging to any given category. In-service candidates belong to one category. Their inter-se merit cannot be overlooked, only to promote seniority, which has no place in the scheme of MCI Regulations. The Apex Court further held that this does not mean that merit-based admissions to in-service candidates cannot take into account the service rendered by such candidates in rural areas. Weightage for such service is permissible while determining the merit of the candidates in terms of the third proviso to Regulation 9. After analysing the rival contentions, the Apex Court held that admissions can and ought to be made only on the basis of inter se merit of the candidates determined in terms of the said W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 15 2025:KER:60429 principle, which gives no weightage to seniority simpliciter.
10. In Sudhir N. [(2015) 6 SCC 685], the issue was pertaining to selection to the postgraduate courses given to the in-service candidates, solely based on seniority, neglecting the merit of the candidates who appeared for the same common entrance test. However, in the case at hand, it is not the seniority, but the educational qualification of the in-service candidates that was taken into account while preparing the rank list on the basis of the prospectus issued by the department. In such circumstances, the dictum in Sudhir N. [(2015) 6 SCC 685] is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand.
11. In Krishna Sradha [(2020) 17 SCC 465] the question that has been referred to the larger Bench of the Apex Court is where a student, a meritorious candidate, for no fault of his/her is denied admission illegally and arbitrarily and who has pursued her legal right expeditiously without delay, can be denied admission because of the cut off date is over and in such a situation the relief which can be given by the Court is to grant appropriate compensation only or what relief can be granted by W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 16 2025:KER:60429 the Court in such a situation. By answering the reference, the Apex Court held that to do complete justice, the Court, under exceptional circumstances, and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats; however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admission can be ordered within a reasonable time.
12. In Krishna Sradha [(2020) 17 SCC 465], the Apex Court further held that if the Court deems fit and proper, after giving an opportunity of hearing, cancel the admission given to the candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally. It is also held by the Apex Court that in case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it is found that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules or regulations or the prospectus affecting right of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the Court at the earliest and without any delay, the W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 17 2025:KER:60429 Court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase the number of seats as may be considered in appropriate in the case.
13. But as found in the instant case, since the writ petitioner did not prove that the preparation of the rank list based on the qualification prescribed in the prospectus issued by the 3 rd appellant was arbitrary or violation of any of the statutory provisions, such moulding of relief as claimed in W.A. No.1365 of 2025 is not warranted. Therefore, the facts of the judgment in Krishna Sradha [(2020) 17 SCC 465] is not applicable to the case in our hand.
14. In Saurabh Jain (Dr.) [ 2011 (1) KHC 680] a Full Bench of this Court while overruling the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court held that candidates participating in the selection process either for employment or for an educational opportunity are not estopped from challenging the legality of the process, on the ground that they participated in the selection process before raising the challenge to the selection process. But W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 18 2025:KER:60429 as noted above, in the instant case, there is no violation of principles of equality or, in other words, the classification made by the Government to give preference to the in-service candidates holding higher educational qualifications cannot be said to violate any of the statutory obligations. Therefore, the judgment in Saurabh Jain (Dr.) [2011 (1) KHC 680] has also no application to the facts of the instant case.
15 . The writ petitioner participated in the examination after fully understanding clause 5.2.10(i) of Ext.P2. It is based on the said clause in the prospectus, the 2nd respondent in W.A. No. 1350 of 2025 was placed above the writ petitioner, though the writ petitioner secured more marks in the NEET Examination. According to the appellants in W.A. No.1350 of 2025, such a classification was given in Ext.P2 to give service benefits to the employees under the Government. Such a fixation of priority, based on the qualification, cannot be considered as a classification within a class as contended by the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge failed to properly appreciate this aspect while allowing the writ petition.
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 19 2025:KER:60429 In the result, W.A. No. 1365 of 2025 stands dismissed. W.A. No.1350 of 2025 is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2025 in W.P(C) No.29792 of 2024, and the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE