Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1817 (MAD)

SQN. /LDR. v. Anand VS Directorate of Medical Education & Others

2003-11-10

D.MURUGESAN

body2003
Judgment :- The petitioner in W.P.No.17771/2003 has sought for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to call the petitioner for counseling for the Higher Speciality Course M.Ch.(Vascular Surgery) for the year 2003-2004 and to allot the only seat earmarked for the course. 2.The petitioner in W.P.No. 21352/2003 has sought for a Writ of Declaration declaring that the restriction clause regarding the residence contained in Clauses 64 (3)(b) and © of the Tamil Nadu Medical College Prospectus for the year 2003-2004 is unreasonable, illegal, ultravires and unconstitutional and for consequential direction to the 4th respondent to create an additional seat. 3. Pursuant to the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu, prospectus for admission to three year Higher Speciality Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges for the academic year 2003-2004 was published by the Director of Medical Education, Chennai. The following are the eligible criteria in method of selection for the candidate to apply for the said post. METHOD OF SELECTION 13. He/She must be a citizen of India 14. Candidates from other States are not eligible to apply 15. a. Candidates who had studied their Under Graduate and Post Graduate courses in Tamil Nadu are eligible to apply. b. Other candidates have to produce the Nativity certificate of Origin of Tamil Nadu in the format annexed in the application form. THE METHOD OF SELECTION: 62. The Final preparation of selection list/waiting list for admission of candidates to the various discipline of the higher speciality course will be made on the basis of the merit list. 63. The Selection will be made by Counselling based only on merit and no communal reservation will be followed. 50% of the seats will be made available as open competition for selection among both Service/Non-Service candidates. 50% of the seats will be made available only for Service Candidates. In case of odd number seat remaining vacant that seat shall be selected as per merit among both Service and Non-service candidates put together. 50% of seats in each college are reserved for service candidates whether they are selected under open or service quota. 64. The following categories of Medical Officers will be treated as Service Candidates for the purpose of allotment of seats: (1) Medical Officers selected by the TNPSC and appointed in Tamil Nadu Medical Services on regular basis, who have put in minimum of two years of continuous service as on 1.2.2003. 64. The following categories of Medical Officers will be treated as Service Candidates for the purpose of allotment of seats: (1) Medical Officers selected by the TNPSC and appointed in Tamil Nadu Medical Services on regular basis, who have put in minimum of two years of continuous service as on 1.2.2003. (2) Medical Officers who are approved probationers and who have put in minimum of two years of continuous service as on 1.2.2003 and serving in (3) Medical Officers serving in: a) Local bodies in Tamil Nadu (Except Medical Officers working in Panchayat Union Part time or full time, as the case may be are to be treated as Non-Service Candidates) (b) Government of India Institutions in Tamil Nadu (c) Public Sector undertakings and Organisations under the control of Government of Tamil Nadu/Government of India in Tamil Nadu 4. The petitioner applied for admission to Vascular Surgery Higher Speciality Course. There are two seats earmarked for the said course. As per Clause 63 of the prospectus, one seat is earmarked for open competition and the another seat is earmarked for service candidates. In terms of Clause 64, in order to apply for admission as against one seat, candidate must fulfil any one of the conditions under Clause 64 of the Prospectus. The petitioner though secured 54.38 marks and stood first in the candidate marks for admission as against one seat earmarked for Service Candidates was not called for counseling. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is an Officer in Armed Force Medical Service, presently serving in Jammu and Kashmir. His application was rejected on the ground that though he belongs to the State of Tamil Nadu, he is not a resident of Tamil Nadu. Insofar as the Higher Speciality Courses are concerned, the Apex Court in DINESH KUMAR VS MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD ( A.I.R. 1986 SC 1877) and PRADEEP JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA ( A.I.R. 1984 SC 1420) has held that merit alone shall be the criteria and there cannot be any restriction over the resident. The denial of the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a resident of Tamil Nadu is opposed to law as laid down by the Apex Court. The denial of the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a resident of Tamil Nadu is opposed to law as laid down by the Apex Court. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the one seat earmarked for Service Candidates for Vascular Surgery Speciality Course. 6. Mr.V.R. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader, on the other hand would submit that the respondents have reserved 50% of the seat for Service candidates and the remaining 50% of the suit for open category. The petitioner though applied for admission as against the seat earmarked for Service candidates, was also considered under the open category but was not selected as he did not come within the zone of consideration as he had secured only 54.38 marks. A candidate by name Dr.M.Bhuvaneswaran who had secured 54.75 marks was selected and admitted. Insofar as the claim of the petitioner for admission as against the seat earmarked for Service Candidates, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that he is not eligible for consideration as he is not a Service Candidate in any of the items enumerated in clause 64 of the prospectus, as armed Services cannot be considered as one of the eligibilities under this clause. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted as on date, the next candidate viz., Dr. Balakumar was selected and he has joined the course. 7. The petitioner has questioned Clause 64 (3)(b) and (c) on the ground that the reserved seats are only for the Government of India Institutions in Tamil Nadu and Public Section undertakings and organisations under the Control of Government of Tamil Nadu/Government of India in Tamil Nadu. The question of Method of Selection in earmarking 50% of the seats for Service Candidates and the remaining 50% for open category had come up for consideration before Courts on more than one occasion and the right of the Government to identify the source for admission was approved by this Court as well as the Apex court. Earmarking of 50% of seat for service candidates is to enable the Service Candidates to equip themselves in Higher studies to serve the people of the State better. Such reservation cannot be considered to be illegal or arbitrary. 8. Earmarking of 50% of seat for service candidates is to enable the Service Candidates to equip themselves in Higher studies to serve the people of the State better. Such reservation cannot be considered to be illegal or arbitrary. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is that as against the one seat reserved for service candidates, the petitioner has secured 54.38 marks and is eligible as he stood No.1 in the waiting list and he was unjustly denied a seat only because of restriction imposed in Clause 64(3)(b) and ( c) To find out as to whether such restrictions are reasonable, it must be borne in mind that first of two seats for higher Speciality courses shall be filled up only on the basis of merits. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there cannot be another opinion as the law declared by the Supreme court is binding on all parties and merit alone shall be the criteria for admission to higher speciality courses. Insofar as eligibility and method of selection of the candidates is concerned, selection will be made only on the basis of merit as the respondent State has not imposed any condition for admission of candidates for open category but only to service candidates. Both the seats have to be filled up only on the basis of merit. But the question is the eligibility of the candidate for consideration to higher speciality courses. When coming to the question of eligibility it is the specific stand of the respondents that the petitioner is eligible to apply for consideration to the admission on merits as against the one seat reserved for open category. Since the candidate who has secured marks higher than the petitioner was selected, there cannot be any grievance for the petitioner as against the one seat earmarked for open category. Insofar as the service candidates also the same is also filled upon only on the basis of merits but from among the candidates eligible to apply as per Clause 64. 9. Insofar as the service candidates also the same is also filled upon only on the basis of merits but from among the candidates eligible to apply as per Clause 64. 9. As already pointed out, when similar question came up for consideration viz., imposing restrictions for entitlement of the service candidates, before the Apex Court, the same has been upheld by the Apex Court in the judgment reported in CHITRA GHOSH VS UNION OF INDIA (A.I.R. 1970 SC 35) and the Supreme Court has held as follows: "It is the Central Government which bears the financial burden of running the medical college. It is for it to lay down the criteria for eligibility. From the very nature of things it is not possible to throw the admission open to students from all over the country. The Government cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the admission will be made. That essentially is a question of policy and depends inter alia on an overall assessment and survey of the requirements of residents of particular territories and other categories of persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities for medical education. If the sources are properly classified whether on territorial geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the Courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification" In that event, the clause restricting the petitioner to apply on the ground that he is not actually residing in Tamil Nadu cannot be found fault. Moreover, the armed medical services is not one of the items enumerated in Clause 64 of the prospectus. When the right of the State to identify the source for admission, that too on the basis of merit without following the reservation is admitted, I do not find any illegality or unconstitutional in Clause 64(3)(b) and ( c) of the prospectus. In that event, the challenge to the said clause is totally unsustainable. 10. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.34291 and 34238/2003 are closed.