Madras High Court
B.Natarajah vs Government Of Puducherry on 24 August, 2021
W.A.No.811 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
W.A.No.811 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.4494 of 2021
B.Natarajah .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Government of Puducherry
Rep. By its Health Secretary,
Goubert Salai, Puducherry.
2.Government of Puducherry,
Centralised Admission Committee(CENTAC)
Pondicherry Engineering College Campus,
Puducherry.
3.The Director,
Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute,
Vazhudavur Main Road,
Kathirkamam, Puducherry.
4.National Medical Commission
Pocket – 14, Sector – 8,
Dwarka Phase I
New Delhi – 110 077. .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 10.02.2021 made in W.P.No.920 of 2021
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondents : Ms.N.Mala
Government Pleader (Puducherry)
for R1 and R2
No appearance for R3
M/s.Shubharanjani Anandh for R4
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.)
This writ appeal has been filed by a candidate who could not get
a seat for the MBBS Course pursuant to the seat matrix adopted for
the purpose of filling 180 seats for the academic year 2020-2021.
2. In the appeal, we are primarily concerned with the seats to be
filled up under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) by way of
regional reservation to the Union Territory of Puducherry. 10% has
been earmarked for the Economically Weaker Sections, of which, 11
seats are to be filled up for Puducherry and three for Karaikkal. For
Yanam, there is no seat reserved and for Mahe, one seat is allotted.
3. A challenge was made before the Division Bench to the
regional reservation of the Puducherry region. The Division Bench of
this Court in Federation of Puducherry Parents-Students Affected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
by Regionwise Reservation Vs. Government of Puducherry
(2010 (5) CTC 385), was pleased to hold as follows:-
“31. In the counter affidavit, no reason has been
assigned as to the object behind reserving 75%
seats exclusively to the Puducherry Region. In
fact, the counter affidavit only seeks to justify the
regional reservation for Karaikkal, Mahe and
Yanam Regions and has absolutely not adverted to
the object behind reservation for Puducherry
Region, which has been introduced for the first
time this year (2010-2011). All that is stated is
that by allocation of 75% seats exclusively for
Puducherry Region would in no way affect the
interest of candidates hailing from Karaikkal, Mahe
and Yanam Regions. This could hardly be a
justification to support the decision taken. The
Government while constituting a Consultative
Committee to review the Regional reservation of
seat by G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 28.04.2010, was
considering the regional reservation for Karaikal,
Mahe and Yanam regions alone and the
reservation for Puducherry region was never
thought of or contemplated. Thus, in our view, the
reservation for the Puducherry Region has not
been justified by the Government in any manner.
32..
33...
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
34. Thus, in the absence of any material
placed before this Court, to justify the reservation
of 75% of the seats for the Puducherry Region, we
are inclined to hold that such reservation is bad in
law. Accordingly, the reservation in respect of
75% of seats for the Pondicherry Region requires
to be set aside.”
4. Yet another order has been passed by a learned Single Judge
in W.P.No.24861 of 2019 dated 27.08.2019, holding that there is no
violation of the order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.13130 of
2010. The following paragraphs would be apposite:-
“11. The Learned Counsel for the respondents
have also furnished the details of students who
have been allotted seats under the EWS quota and
their NEET score. From the information furnished,
this Court finds that none of the candidates
allotted seats under EWS quota have secured
marks less than the petitioner. It is also brought
to the notice of this Court that, 10 seats which
was earlier filled under the Puducherry (UT) quota,
nearly six candidates from Yanam region has been
given seat which indicates that the seat matrix the
75% of the seat for Puducherry (UT), 18% of the
seats for Karaikal, 3% of the seats for Yanam and
4% of the seats for Mahe region not altered by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
reservation of EWS lapsed seats. The 75% of the
seat is not exclusively for the residence of
Puducherry but for all the residence of the Union
Territory of Puducherry and there is no regional
reservation as far as 75% is concerned. Therefore,
the contention of the petitioner that, 75% seat has
been allotted exclusively for the residence of
Puducherry found to be incorrect.
12.Therefore, there is no violation of the
Division Bench observation made in the batch of
W.P.No.13130 of 2010 nor, there is any violation
of Article 14 as alleged by the petitioner.”
5. Instructions have been given by the Government of
Puducherry on Centralized Admission Committee through the
proceedings dated 12.01.2021 giving the revised mop-up counselling
scheduled to be held on 13.01.2021. The revised mop-up counselling
also took place in which the appellant took part. After completing the
process, the following marks have been arrived at for the candidates
applied under the Economically Weaker Sections. In toto, there were
23 applications. The details are hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
Sl.No. Name NEET Score NEET Rank Region
1 SABARISREE,M 447 135299 PY
2 INDRA 300 322855 PY
PRIYADHARSHINI G
3 SRIMATHI T 290 340161 PY
4 YALLA SWAMI SAINADH 285 348590 YANAM
5 SURYADEVARA SRI 273 369451 YANAM
SWAPNA LALITHYA
6 ANANDAKRISHNAN M 272 372195 PY
7 LOKESH VARMA R 268 379674 PY
8 NETHAJI C 267 381555 PY
9 THEERKATHARSHINI B 249 415225 PY
10 GUNTURI ANUSREE 246 421175 YANAM
11 SAMNAVI 234 447793 PY
12 NIRRAJANNA V 232 450447 PY
13 ANNAMNEEDI NANDINI 227 461289 YANAM
LAKSHMI
14 ROSHAN J 222 473594 PY
15 KRANTHI VARSHITHA 217 485528 YANAM
REDDY ANISETTY
16 SUDA DARANI 202 521199 YANAM
PRIYANKA
17 NITISH T 195 538611 PY
18 MIHIR ARYAN 176 590278 PY
19 PYDIKONDALA VASAVI 170 605906 YANAM
20 ROHIT J 160 637675 PY
21 KAMICHETTY JAYA 159 642557 YANAM
GANESH MURTHY
22 NATARAJAH B 151 666838 PY
23 BASA LAKSHMI 150 668637 YANAM
SOWMYA DEEPIKA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
6. From the above, we could say that the appellant stood at
Sl.No.22. Two contentions have been raised by the appellant before
the learned Single Judge. The primary contention was that 75%
reservation made for the Puducherry region as a whole under the
Economically Weaker Sections which constitute 10% of the total seats
available corresponding to 11 seats has to be reserved for the
residents of the Puducherry alone, to the exclusion of Karaikal, Yanam
and Mahe. If that is done, being the resident of Puducherry, the
appellant would have got the seat. During the pendency of the writ
petition, an additional affidavit has been filed inter alia stating that
mop-up counselling has not been done as per the Schedule and,
therefore, the students who are otherwise admitted under the BDS
Course got into the MBBS Course. Resultantly, though they have got
higher marks, the non-following of the procedure made the appellant
not getting the MBBS seat.
7. Learned Single Judge, dismissed the writ petition rejecting
both the contentions. Challenging the same, the present writ appeal
has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
8. Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the order of the Division Bench has been mis-construed
and, therefore, the reservation meant for the Economically Weaker
Sections has to be restricted insofar as 11 seats coming under the
Puducherry region is concerned. The Division Bench did not deal with
the vertical reservation and the prospectus being clear over the
statutory prescription, the order of the learned Single Judge required
to be interfered with in view of the allegations made on the mop-up
counselling, it is for the respondents to hear the same and place
relevant materials before the Court.
9. Ms.Mala, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) appearing
for the contesting respondents submitted that the order of the Division
Bench has been complied with. Reservation of 11 seats meant for
Puducherry is actually to be extended to the residents of Karaikal,
Yanam and Mahe. There were 23 applications and the applications of
the local residents have been taken into consideration and seats have
been allotted. There is no basis for the allegation with respect to the
non-adherence to the time schedule given in the mop-up counselling.
Admittedly, the candidates selected have secured higher marks than
the appellant. Even assuming, three candidates who are given seats
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
hailing from Yanam are to be excluded, the appellant will not get the
seat as there were other Puducherry residents who applied and got
higher marks than the appellant. Even they did not get it. Therefore,
looking from any perspective, the appellant is not entitled for the relief.
10. We are concerned with the admission of the students for the
MBBS Course for the academic year 2020-2021. On the legal issue
raised qua the prospectus, though we are of the prima facie view that
the appellant does not have a case, consciously we do not propose to
delve much into it. This is for the reason that even otherwise he will
not be entitled for the admission. We have already recorded the list of
23 candidates, who have applied under the Economically Weaker
Sections quota, in which the appellant comes at Sl.No.22 having
secured lesser marks than 21 candidates who are above him. If the
three candidates who form part of 11 candidates selected under the
Puducherry are excluded, even then, the appellant will not be entitled
for admission. The allegation made by the appellant that the Schedule
has not been adhered to which adversely affected the prospectus of
the appellant has been denied. This is in the realm of speculation and
we do not know as to whether the appellant would be entitled to
otherwise or not as against any other person. Suffice it to say that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
even those three candidates hailing from Yanam have been given
admission under the Puducherry quota, the appellant will not be
entitled for admission.
11. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the appeal
deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (S.K., J.)
24.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
mmi/ssm
To
1.The Health Secretary,
Government of Puducherry
Goubert Salai, Puducherry.
2.Government of Puducherry,
Centralised Admission Committee(CENTAC)
Pondicherry Engineering College Campus,
Puducherry.
3.The Director,
Indira Gandhi Medical College and Research Institute,
Vazhudavur Main Road,
Kathirkamam, Puducherry.
4.National Medical Commission
Pocket – 14, Sector – 8,
Dwarka Phase I, New Delhi – 110 077.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.811 of 2021
M.M.SUNDRESH,J.
and
S.KANNAMMAL,J.
mmi
W.A.No.811 of 2021
24.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
