Judgment 1. The petitioner is a Doctor, holding M.B.B.S. Degree, awarded by the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University. She passed-out M.B.B.S. Examination held in the month of February, 2006 and she was awarded M.B.B.S. Degree in the Convocation held on 11.10.2007. The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, by his proceedings in R.No.11484/E5/A3/2009, dated 26.11.2009, appointed the petitioner, temporarily, as Assistant Surgeon under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services (in short “the General Rules”), under category 2 of Clause-I of the Tamil Nadu Medical Services. She was posted to the Primary Health Center at Thulukarapatti in Tirunelveli District, which is, admittedly, a rural area. 2. The 2nd respondent issued prospectus for admission to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma M.D.S/ 6 Year M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical/Dental Colleges/Self Financing Institutions for the year 2012-2013. The petitioner made her application. 3. According to the Clause 40 of the prospectus, the merit list will be drawn for a total marks of 100, by computing Entrance Examination Marks and the marks for Experience (90 marks for entrance examination + 10 marks for experience). The petitioner had participated in the written examination. As per the results published, the petitioner had secured 63.36 marks. For experience, she was awarded 5 marks. Thus, her total marks secured was 68.36. Going by the said marks, she was allotted a seat in Post-Graduate Diploma in Obstetrics and Gynaecology Course in the Madras Medical College, in the counseling held on 16.05.2012. According to the petitioner, she should have been awarded a total number of 7 marks for experience, including 2 marks for having served in a rural area. Had this additional 2 marks been awarded, according to the petitioner, she would have got a seat in M.S. (Obstetrics and Gynaecology) course. With this grievance the petitioner has filed the present Writ petition. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and I have also perused the records, carefully. 5. When the Writ petition came up for admission on 26.04.2009 this Court issued notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents made appearance through the learned Government Advocate. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and I have also perused the records, carefully. 5. When the Writ petition came up for admission on 26.04.2009 this Court issued notice to the respondents. Accordingly, the respondents made appearance through the learned Government Advocate. Finally by order dated 10.05.2012 this Court in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 issued a direction to the 2nd respondent herein to keep one seat vacant in M.S. (O&G) for the academic year 2012 – 2013. 6. In this writ petition, it is contended that as per Clause 41(a)(2)(ii) of the prospectus, 1 mark per year of service in rural areas and 2 marks per year of service in hilly areas should be awarded, for experience. According to the petitioner, since she worked in a rural area, as per the appointment order issued under 10 (a)(i) of the General Rules and since she had put in a total number of 2 years and 4 months of service, she is entitled for 2 marks in addition. 7. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the above claim is disputed. According to the counter affidavit, the candidate who have served in rural areas, in pursuance of appointment order issued under Rule 10 (a)(i) of the General Rules are treated only as non-service candidates and, therefore, any amount of experience gained by such service will not be taken into account for awarding marks under Clause 41(a)(2)(ii) of the prospectus. In this case, according to the respondent, therefore, no marks were awarded to the petitioner under this clause. It is further stated that the interim order of this Court dated 10.05.2013 was received by the respondents only on 05.06.2012 and in the mean while, the counseling was conducted by the 2nd respondent from 14.05.2012 to 21.05.2012 and in the said counseling, all the seats were filled up. It is further stated that the cut-off mark for B.C. category for M.S.(O&G) course was 75.52; whereas the petitioner has secured only 63.36. Thus, the petitioner was not allotted seat in M.S.(O&G) course. It is further stated that the cut-off mark for B.C. category for M.S.(O&G) course was 75.52; whereas the petitioner has secured only 63.36. Thus, the petitioner was not allotted seat in M.S.(O&G) course. It is further stated that subsequently, during the second counselling, held on 28.06.2012, one seat surrendered from the All India quota for M.S.(O&G) course was also considered and as against the said vacancy, the petitioner was not considered and the said vacancy was also not kept vacant because, as per the allotment, it was earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidate and since the petitioner belongs to B.C. community, she could not be considered in the said vacancy also. Thus, according to the counter, as of now there is no vacancy in the course for M.S.(O&G). Thus, according to the respondents, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the above submissions. 9. Before going into the factual aspects of the matter, let us have a quick look into the relevant provisions of the prospectus. Clauses 40 and 41 of the prospectus deal with the method by which merit list is to be drawn. They read as follows: “40. The Merit List will be drawn for a Total Mark of 100 by computing the Entrance Examination Marks and the marks for experience (90 marks for entrance examination + 10 marks for experience). 41.(a) One mark for each completed year after the completion of CRRI shall be awarded as marks for experience for both service and non-service candidates to a maximum of Ten marks as on 31.03.2012 and Service Candidates shall be awarded, one mark per year of service in rural areas and two marks per year of service in hilly areas and two marks per year of service in Government Hospitals, Primary Health Centres and Government Medical College Hospitals of Thiruvarur, Nagapattinam and Ramanathapuram Districts limited to a maximum of 10 marks. Altogether the total marks awarded for experience will be restricted to 10 marks to all candidates including candidates from rural and hilly areas and the three districts mentioned above. 1) Marks awarded for Entrance examination : Maximum 90 marks. 2) Experience marks for all candidates limited to a maximum of 10 (i + ii + iii) i) One mark per year for experience after CRRI. 1) Marks awarded for Entrance examination : Maximum 90 marks. 2) Experience marks for all candidates limited to a maximum of 10 (i + ii + iii) i) One mark per year for experience after CRRI. ii) Marks for candidates served in rural and hilly areas : - One mark per year of service in rural areas and two marks per year of service in hilly areas iii) Two marks per year of Service for candidates who have worked in Government Hospitals, Primary Health Centres and Government Medical College Hospitals of Thiruvarur, Nagapattinam and Ramanathapuram Districts. Fractional values of a year will not be counted for awarding marks for experience in i, ii & iii.” 10. Referring to the above Clauses, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no distinction between a candidate appointed as medical officer through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and posted in rural areas and a candidate appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner can be treated as a non-service candidates only for the purpose of considering her as against the 50% of the seats reserved for service candidates. The learned counsel would further submit that so far as Clauses 40 and 41 are concerned, they deal only with experience and not whether such experience has been gained by a non-service candidate or service candidate in terms of Clause 10 of the prospectus. 11. Clause 10 of the prospectus reads as follows: “10(a) 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, with minimum of Two Years continuous service as on 31.03.2012. 2. Medical Officers serving (continuously for two years) in Local Bodies in Tamil Nadu. b. Those Service candidates (selected by TNPSC) who have put in LESS THAN TWO Years of continuos regular service as on 31.03.2012 either in Tamil Nadu Medical Service or in Local Bodies are not eligible to apply for P.G.Degree Diploma/6 Year M.Ch (Neurosurgry)/MDS Courses. Fractional values of a year will not be counted. (c) 10 a(i) candidates/Contract Medical Consultants not selected by TNPSC will not be considered as Service candidates. If selected for any Post Graduate course they have to submit their resignation. Fractional values of a year will not be counted. (c) 10 a(i) candidates/Contract Medical Consultants not selected by TNPSC will not be considered as Service candidates. If selected for any Post Graduate course they have to submit their resignation. They will be considered as Service candidates if they have been selected by TNPSC at the time of counselling and have completed TWO years of service. If any Medical Officer including 10 a(i) candidates/Contract Medical Consultants after selection by TNPSC apply as Private candidates suppressing the fact of their selection, they will be debarred for TWO years. Further appropriate legal action will be taken against them. (d) Candidates working in Institutions coming under “Registered under Societies Act” and Self Financing institutions shall be considered as Non service candidates.” 12. Taking the Court through Clause 10 of the prospectus, the learned counsel would submit that Clause 10 declares that a candidate appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules cannot be treated as a service candidate only for the purpose of Clause 54(b) of the prospectus. Clause 54 (b) reads as follows: “54. a. ... b. 50% of seats in each speciality and in each college are reserved to service candidates, in addition to those service candidates selected in the open category. In case an odd number seat remains in any speciality in the total seats sanctioned for that speciality, that seat shall be filled by merit and communal reservation. ....” 13. By making a comprehensive reading of Clause 10 and Clause 54(b), the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if a candidate has served in a rural area, having been appointed through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, then he will be considered as against the 50% of seats reserved for service candidates but, for the purpose of awarding of marks for the experience gained, according to the learned counsel, it is immaterial as to whether he was appointed through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission or under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules. 14. But, the learned Government Advocate would very seriously dispute the above contention. According to him, a candidate, who had been appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules, though he had worked in a rural area, shall be treated only as non-service candidate for all purposes, including awarding of marks under Clause 41(a)(2)(ii) of the prospectus. 15. 14. But, the learned Government Advocate would very seriously dispute the above contention. According to him, a candidate, who had been appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules, though he had worked in a rural area, shall be treated only as non-service candidate for all purposes, including awarding of marks under Clause 41(a)(2)(ii) of the prospectus. 15. A close reading of Clause 41(a) would make it abundantly clear that 90 marks are allotted for entrance examination and 10 marks are allotted for experience. Clause 40 does not distinguish between a service candidate or a non-service candidate, as dealt with in Clause 10. It also does not say that 10 marks shall be awarded for service. Instead, it states, 10 marks shall be awarded for experience. Again, Clauses 17 and 18 also go to fortify the stand taken by the petitioner, which read as follows: “17. Service candidates including 10 a(i) candidates/Contract Medical Consultants working in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Institutions should send their applications through the proper channel with the forwarding authority's remarks and the service particulars carefully filled up by the forwarding authority as prescribed in the application form. Applications of the Service candidates who have completed two years of continuous, regular service alone will be considered. The Heads of Departments have to issue a Certificate of completion of the required service. The applications should reach within the stipulated time. Applications received after the last date will not be accepted irrespective of the date of submission and date of forwarding by the competent authority. 18. Candidates must enclose only Photocopies of documents duly attested by a gazetted officer in the order as indicated below: (a) MBBS/Diploma/BDS course completion certificate from the college where the candidate has undergone the course. (b) MBBS/Diploma/BDS Degree certificate or provisional pass certificate from the University concerned. (c) CRRI Completion certificate from the Dean/Head of the Institution (New Regulation for BDS). (d) Final BDS/Final MBBS Part II Mark Sheets. (e) Permanent Medical/Dental Registration certificate issued by the Medical/Dental Council of India/State. (f) Community certificate from the competent authority indicating the community status of candidates belong to BC/BCM/MBC/DC/SC/SCA, ST candidates should produce community certificates issued by a Revenue Divisional Officer. (g) Attempt certificates in Final MBBS Part II/Final BDS. (h) Eligibility certificate from Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University for candidates who have qualified from other Universities. (f) Community certificate from the competent authority indicating the community status of candidates belong to BC/BCM/MBC/DC/SC/SCA, ST candidates should produce community certificates issued by a Revenue Divisional Officer. (g) Attempt certificates in Final MBBS Part II/Final BDS. (h) Eligibility certificate from Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R.Medical University for candidates who have qualified from other Universities. This should be produced at the time of counselling when called for. (i) HSC/Equivalent Examination Mark Sheet. (j) TNPSC Selection & Posting Order (For Service Candidates). (k) Nativity certificate (if applicable) with supportive documents (l) Posting order from appropriate authority for 10 a(i)/Contract Medical Consultants.” 16. Had it been the intention of the respondents that 10(a)(i) candidates are to be treated only as non-service candidates for all practical purposes, including awarding of marks in terms of Clauses 40 and 41(a) of the prospectus, there would have been no need or occasion for specifically mentioning 10(a)(i) candidates as service candidates in Clause 17 of the prospectus. The expression “Service candidates including 10 a(i) candidates/Contract Medical Consultants working in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Institutions should send their applications though the proper channel” requires underlining. The term “service candidates” has been defined in an inclusive manner so as to include even 10(a)(i) candidates. Therefore, a service candidate for the purpose of awarding of marks for experience would include a candidate appointed under Rule 10 (a)(i) of the General Rules also. Again Clause 18(j) of the prospects speaks of production of photostat copies of the selection and posting orders issued for Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for service candidates. The prospectus does not stop with this. In addition, Clause 18(l) speaks of production of photostat copies of posting order from appropriate authority for 10 a(i)/ Contract Medical Consultants. Inclusion of this condition in Clause 18 would also again go to fortify that appointment under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules is also relevant for the purpose of awarding marks for experience. 17. The learned Government Advocate would rely on Clause 10(c) of the prospectus, which states “10 a(i) candidates/contract Medical Consultants not selected by TNPSC will not be considered as Service candidates”. Relying more on these wordings in Clause 10(c) of the prospectus, the learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner shall not be considered as a service candidate. If this contention is to be accepted, then, Clauses 17 and 18(l) become meaningless. Relying more on these wordings in Clause 10(c) of the prospectus, the learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner shall not be considered as a service candidate. If this contention is to be accepted, then, Clauses 17 and 18(l) become meaningless. The very inclusion of these two clauses would go to indicate that the experience gained in rural service by a candidate appointed under Rule 10 (a)(i) of the General Rules has got some relevance for the purpose of selection. That relevance is dealt with in Clauses 40, 41(a) and 54(b) of the prospectus. 18. Clause 54(b) of the prospectus does not speak of any experience. It speaks of 50% of seats reserved for service candidates. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the candidates, who were appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules and dealt with in Clause 10 of the prospectus, shall be considered as non-service candidates and therefore they would not be considered as against the 50% of the seats reserved for service candidates. But, they shall be considered as against the 50% of seats earmarked under common pool. Thus, for both service candidates and non service candidates, for the purpose of selecting the candidates as against 50% of the seats, it is meant for all the candidates, both service candidates and non-service candidates 19. Merit list is to be drawn according to clauses 40 and 41(a). In Clauses 40 and 41(a), as I have already pointed out, there is no distinction made between a candidate appointed through TNPSC and under Rule 10 (a)(i) of the General Rules for the purpose of awarding of marks for experience. These two Clauses speak only of experience and not of whether appointment was made through TNPSC or under Rule 10(a)(i) of the General Rules. Therefore, a candidate, who was appointed under Rule 10(a)(i) of the Service Rules and has put in service in rural areas, is certainly entitled for marks for the said experience under Clauses 40 and 41 of the prospectus. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for marks for her experience, having worked in rural areas, cannot be accepted. I hold that the petitioner is entitled for marks for experience, having worked in rural areas as a candidate appointed under Rule 10(a) (i) of the General Rules. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for marks for her experience, having worked in rural areas, cannot be accepted. I hold that the petitioner is entitled for marks for experience, having worked in rural areas as a candidate appointed under Rule 10(a) (i) of the General Rules. If that is so, then, for the service of 2 years and 4 months, the petitioner is entitled for two marks because, fractional values of an year will not be counted, as per Clause 41 (a). Thus, the petitioner is entitled for 2 additional marks under Clause 41(a)(2)(ii) of the prospectus. If that is done, the petitioner would have been awarded 70.36 marks. But, by wrongly interpreting the prospectus, she has been denied two marks. 20. Now, the question is what is the relief which can be given to the petitioner at this length of time. As per the counter, cut-off marks for M.S.(O&G) course for Backward Class was 75.52 and even if the petitioner is awarded two additional marks, her total marks work-out only 70.36 and therefore she wold not have been secured a seat in M.S.(O&G) course. When this was pointed out, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if not for M.S.(O&G) course, the petitioner would have been selected for any other post-graduate course like M.D.(General Medicine), etc. It may be true. But, on that assumption, this Court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. Assuming that the petitioner would have been allotted a seat in any other Post-Graduate Course like M.D.(General Medicine) etc., now, admittedly, there is no vacancy in any course. Therefore, at this length of time, it would be very difficult to find out a course to which the petitioner would have been entitled to and to fit in her in that course, by disturbing a candidate who has been already undergoing the course for about 2-1/2 years. This is practically impossible. That candidate who has been allotted a seat is not a party before this Court. It is also practically very difficult to identify that candidate and then to go ahead with the case. 21. So far as the interim order of this Court to keep one seat vacant is concerned, the direction is to keep one seat vacant in M.S.(O&G). That candidate who has been allotted a seat is not a party before this Court. It is also practically very difficult to identify that candidate and then to go ahead with the case. 21. So far as the interim order of this Court to keep one seat vacant is concerned, the direction is to keep one seat vacant in M.S.(O&G). The stand taken in paragraph 10 of the counter is that though the said order was passed on 10.05.2012, it was received on 05.06.2012 and in the counselling held from 14.05.2012 to 21.05.2012, all the seats were filled-up. The said contention is quite contrary to the order passed by this Court. It is not as if the interim order, dated 10.05.2012, was passed without hearing the respondents. As I have already pointed out, notice was ordered, the respondents appeared through counsel and only after hearing them, the interim order, dated 10.05.2012, was passed. Thus, the respondents were put on notice of the interim order on 10.05.2012 itself. Therefore, it is strange and also shocking that the respondents have taken a stand that in the counselling from 14.05.2012 to 21.05.2012, all the seats were filled-up, since the interim order was received on 05.06.2012. This stand taken by the respondents in paragraph 10 of the counter clearly amounts to contempt of court. For that, action could be taken. But, taking a lenient view, at this length of time, I do not want to initiate any contempt proceedings. At the same time, I also take into account the fact that because all the seats in M.S. (O&G) course were filled-up in the counselling held from 14.05.2012 to 21.05.2012, the petitioner has not been in any manner practically affected. As I have already pointed out, the cutoff mark for B.C. candidates was 75.52; whereas the petitioner's mark was 70.36. Thus, it is certain that because of the counseling held from 14.05.2012 to 21.05.2012, the petitioner has not been affected. For that reason, the 2nd respondent's action cannot be condoned. 22. In the above actual matrix, now this Court has to decide as to what is the relief that could be given to the petitioner. As I have already pointed out, the petitioner is not entitled for a seat in M.S.(O&G) Course because the cut of mark for the said course was 75.52; whereas she had scored only 70.36. 22. In the above actual matrix, now this Court has to decide as to what is the relief that could be given to the petitioner. As I have already pointed out, the petitioner is not entitled for a seat in M.S.(O&G) Course because the cut of mark for the said course was 75.52; whereas she had scored only 70.36. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had she been awarded two more marks as indicated above, she would have certainly got any other P.G.Course. Now, this Court is not in a position to issue a direction to allot a seat in any other P.G.Course, going by her marks because of the time lapse. Further, all the seats in other courses have been filled-up. There was one seat, admittedly, available during the 2nd counselling on 28.06.2012 in M.S. (O&G) course. But, that seat was surrendered from All India Quota and that was ear-marked for Scheduled Caste Candidate. Since the petitioner belongs to B.C.Category, that seat could not have been allotted to the petitioner also. 23. At the end, now the petitioner has lost her right to secure a seat in any one of the postgraduate courses, other than M.S.(O&G) course. This deprivation is because of the indifferent and callous attitude of the 2nd respondent. Now, the petitioner has allotted a seat in P.G.Diploma Course. This deprivation of her valuable right to have a seat in any one of the post-graduate courses like M.D.(General), etc., as I have already pointed out, cannot be condoned. The action of the 2nd respondent deserves to be condemned in strong terms. Students who participate in competitive examinations for securing seats in professional courses, work hard, spend their time studying so many books, attending coaching classes, etc. on the hope that at the end merit alone would be the criteria at the hands of the selection committee when selection is made. Many a times, the said hope is spoiled by the selection committee. Though it may not be wanton, but it is due to the gross negligence, lethargic and callous attitude on the part of the 2nd respondent. Thus, it has resulted in the deprivation of a valuable seat for the petitioner in a post-graduate degree course. 24. Many a times, the said hope is spoiled by the selection committee. Though it may not be wanton, but it is due to the gross negligence, lethargic and callous attitude on the part of the 2nd respondent. Thus, it has resulted in the deprivation of a valuable seat for the petitioner in a post-graduate degree course. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since this Court has concluded that the petitioner has been deprived of a seat in any one of the post-graduate degree courses like M.D.(General Medicine) etc., and though it is not possible, practically, to issue a direction to the respondents to allot any seat in the selection held for the year 2012-2013, in the future selection, the petitioner may be allotted a seat in any one of the post-graduate courses. This argument does not persuade me at all. In a competitive examination, there cannot be a reservation to a person who lost in the previous selection in the future competitive examination. The petitioner had competed with candidates who appeared for the entrance examination and participated in the selection process held for the year 2012-2013. There may be a new set of candidates who would appear in the future selection process, including competitive examination and thus if the petitioner is directed to be allotted a seat in the future selection, she would take advantage of getting such a seat without even competing with fresh candidates, who would participate in the future selection process. Thus, there will be no competition between fresh candidates and the petitioner and the petitioner will still get a seat, which will deprive the candidates who are competing for the seat. This will surely amount to discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court cannot issue a direction to allot a seat in the future selection for the petitioner in any one of the post-graduate courses, as it is claimed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Selection for the year 2012-2013 was completed long before and as a matter of fact, candidates selected have already completed about two years of their course. Therefore, the question of issuing a direction to allot a seat for the 2012-2013 selection is not possible and it is not legal for this Court to issue a direction to allot a seat in the future selection also. 25. Therefore, the question of issuing a direction to allot a seat for the 2012-2013 selection is not possible and it is not legal for this Court to issue a direction to allot a seat in the future selection also. 25. In view of the above conclusion arrived at by this Court, this Court cannot lose sight of the loss caused to the petitioner. As I have already pointed out, the petitioner has been deprived of a valuable seat in a post-graduate curse due to the callous, negligent and lethargic attitude of the second respondent. It is not sure as to whether the petitioner will succeed in future competitions. It is not sure whether the petitioner will secure any seat in future in a post-graduate course. Because of the above attitude of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner would have suffered immeasurable mental agony which this Court is able to perceive. The petitioner has been driven to this Court and she has made a long wait for justice for about two years. All these sufferings should not go without being compensated. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation for the damages done to her by the 2nd respondent, which the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to pay. 26. For the purpose of quantifying the compensation, going by the facts and circumstances of the case, though I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for more amount as compensation, I deem it appropriate to limit it to Rs.1,00,000/-to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2. Towards the cost of this litigation, I impose a sum of Rs.25,000/-as costs to be paid by the respondents 1 and 2 to the petitioner. Thus, the respondents 1 and 2 shall pay a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 27. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) as compensation and Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) as costs to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.