Judgment S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 22.09.2014, made in W.P.(MD)No.6010 of 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who are the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition. 2. The short question involved in this writ appeal is, whether the first respondent/writ petitioner, who secured only 70.36 marks, even as per the findings in the impugned order and not eligible to get M.S.(O&G) Course, as the minimum required marks for getting the seat for a B.C, candidate was 75.52, would be entitled to get a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards damages and costs from the appellants 1 and 2, as per the impugned order. 3. The relief sought for in the writ petition by the first respondent is to issue an order in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai-10, the second appellant herein, to award 2 marks for the first respondent/petitioner for her 2 years rural medical service, as per point No.41 in the prospectus issued by the second appellant for admission to Post- Graduate Degree/Diploma M.D.S/6 Year M.Ch., (Neuro-Surgery) Courses, for the year 2012-2013 and allot one M.S., Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O & G) seat to the first respondent/petitioner in any one of the Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu. The said writ petition was disposed of by the impugned order, dated 22.09.2014, holding that the writ petitioner was not entitled to secure a seat for M.S.(O&G), however, held that she was deprived of her valuable right in getting seat in any other post-graduate course due to callous, negligent and lethargic attitude of the second appellant herein and suffered immeasurable mental agony for which she was entitled to get damages. The order of awarding compensation and cost to the writ petitioner alone is under challenge in this writ appeal. 4. As per the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the first respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled to get admission in M.S.(O&G), on account of lesser mark obtained by her. The order of awarding compensation and cost to the writ petitioner alone is under challenge in this writ appeal. 4. As per the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the first respondent/writ petitioner was not entitled to get admission in M.S.(O&G), on account of lesser mark obtained by her. However, it was held that the first respondent/petitioner had been deprived of her valuable right in getting seat in any other post-graduate course, however, due to callous, negligent and lethargic attitude of the second appellant herein, the first respondent/ writ petitioner suffered immeasurable mental agony and was driven to this Court and was made to wait for a long time, for about 2 years, for justice and all those sufferings should not go waste without being compensated. On that ground, by the impugned order, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants 1 and 2 to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and towards costs of the litigation Rs.25,000/- and both the amounts were directed to be paid by the appellants 1 and 2 to the first respondent/writ petitioner. 5. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to Clause 41(a) (2) of the Prospectus issued for Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma M.D.S/6 Year M.Ch. (Neuro- Surgery) Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical/Dental College/Self Financing Institutions, 2012-2013 (in short "the prospectus"), according to which, one mark for each completed year after the completion of CRRI, one mark per year of service in rural areas and two marks per year for 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, shall be awarded, the averments of the prospectus is not in dispute in this writ appeal. 6. It is an admitted fact that the first respondent/writ petitioner had applied for admission to post-graduate courses, during the academic year 2012-13, under non-service category, while she was working as 10(a)(i) candidate under the control of Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai. The first respondent/writ petitioner secured 63.36 marks in the Entrance Examination and she secured 450th rank in the general category. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that Clause 10 should be read with Clause 41(a) of the prospectus, which was not considered properly in the impugned order. The first respondent/writ petitioner secured 63.36 marks in the Entrance Examination and she secured 450th rank in the general category. 7. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants submitted that Clause 10 should be read with Clause 41(a) of the prospectus, which was not considered properly in the impugned order. It is an undisputed fact by both sides that the first respondent/ petitioner had secured 63.36 marks and was also entitled to additional 5 marks for completion of CRRI, totalling to 68.36 marks. Similarly, it is an admitted fact that there are two feeder categories for admission to the post-graduate degree courses, one is service candidates and the other is non-service candidates. The first respondent/petitioner had not served in any rural area and she herself had applied for admission to post-graduate courses only as non-service candidate. As per Clause 17 of the Prospectus, the application of the first respondent/petitioner was forwarded by the concerned Deputy Director of Health Services, as non-service candidate and mere forwarding of an application of a 10(a)(i) candidate, by the competent authority, would not confer any service benefits to the applicant. Even if 2 marks are added to the credit of the first respondent/petitioner towards service rendered, as claimed by the writ petitioner, she could have secured only 70.36 marks. The last B.C. candidate, who was allotted Government M.S.(O&G) seat had secured 75.52 marks. The first respondent/writ petitioner would not have come under the zone of consideration as B.C. candidate for admission to M.S.(O&G) course, as she had obtained lesser marks. It is not in dispute that as per the impugned order, it has been made clear that even if 2 marks are added with the original marks of the first respondent/writ petitioner, as claimed by her, total marks obtained would be 70.36 and hence the first respondent/petitioner was not entitled to be selected for M.S.(O&G.) seat and the finding of the learned Single Judge is also the same. 8. However, in the impugned order, it was held that she would have come under the zone of consideration for admission to any other post- graduate course like M.D.(Paediatrics), M.D.(Radiology), M.D.(Anaesthesia), etc. 8. However, in the impugned order, it was held that she would have come under the zone of consideration for admission to any other post- graduate course like M.D.(Paediatrics), M.D.(Radiology), M.D.(Anaesthesia), etc. But, the last candidate allotted for other post graduate courses under non-service candidate quota in the Government Medical College has got more than 72 marks and therefore the first respondent/writ petitioner obtained lesser marks, could not have been given a seat either in M.S.(O&G) or any other M.D.Course, based on the marks obtained by her. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to the interim order passed in the writ petition, one seat was kept vacant, as requested by the first respondent/writ petitioner and she was also permitted to attend the counselling. However, she was not selected either for M.S.(O&G) or other post-graduate courses, as she has not obtained the minimum required marks for getting admission. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to sub-clauses (c),(d),(f),(g) and (i) of Clause 43 of the prospectus and argued that as per Clause 10 of the Prospectus, for admission to post-graduate degree courses, medical officers will be treated as Service Candidates for the purpose of allotment of seats, if they were selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed in Tamil Nadu Medical Services on regular basis, with minimum of two years continuous service as on 31.03.2012. Admittedly, the first respondent/petitioner was not a candidate selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and she was working only as 10(a)(i) candidate and therefore she is not eligible to get additional marks. Even if there is any additional marks, her total marks would be 70.36, which would not be sufficient to get admission in M.S.(O&G) or any other M.D.Courses. In this regard, the attention of the Court was drawn to Clauses 10(a) and 41(a)(2)(iii) of the prospectus. Clause 10(a) 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. 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 continuous 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 (Neurosurgery)/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. 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) ......" 10. As per clause 40 of the Prospectus, 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). It is not in dispute that the first respondent-petitioner was not eligible to get post-graduate course of M.S.(O&G), since she has not obtained minimum of 75.52 marks. Similarly, for M.D.(Paediatrics), M.D.,(Radiology), M.D.(Anaesthesia) etc. courses, the minimum required marks for B.C. candidate was 72 marks and therefore she was not eligible for getting a seat in M.S.(O&G) or other M.D.Courses. However, she was permitted to attend counselling and she opted for D.G.O.Course. The Selection Committee Application Form would show that the first respondent/petitioner was ranking 450, as stated by her and total marks obtained by her was 68.36, after giving additional 5 marks for CRRI. Having considered option of the first respondent/petitioner, she was given only D.G.O Course and according to the appellants, she joined the said course and successfully completed the same. Having considered option of the first respondent/petitioner, she was given only D.G.O Course and according to the appellants, she joined the said course and successfully completed the same. However, in the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has stated that she was suffering from mental agony and there was lethargic attitude on the part of appellants 1 and 2 and therefore the appellants 1 and 2 have to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and Rs.25,000/- as costs. It is also an admitted fact that there was one vacancy in M.S.(O&G) Open SC surrendered from All India Quota available and the same was allotted to a Scheduled Caste Candidate, which would not be available for the petitioner as B.C. candidate. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/petitioner has not disputed that the first respondent/petitioner, having accepted P.G.Diploma Course in D.G.O., was admitted in the Government College, Chennai and successfully completed the said course. Had the right of the first respondent/writ petitioner been deprived of on account of the callous, negligent and lethargic attitude of the second appellant, as found in the impugned order, the first respondent/writ petitioner would certainly be entitled to damages and costs of the writ petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabindra Nath Ghosal v. University of Calcutta, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 478, in paragraph 9, has held as follows: “9. The courts having the obligation to satisfy the social aspiration of the citizens have to apply the tool and grant compensation as damages in public law proceedings. Consequently when the court moulds the relief in proceedings under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution seeking enforcement or protection of fundamental rights and grants compensation, it does so under the public law by way of penalising the wrongdoer and fixing the liability for the public wrong on the State which has failed in its public duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. The court in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, therefore, would not award damages against public authorities merely because they have made some order which turns out to be ultra vires or there has been some inaction in the performance of the duties unless there is malice or conscious abuse. Before exemplary damages can be awarded it must be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act.” 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in exercise of extraordinary power under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution, damages would not be awarded against public authorities, merely on the ground that they made some order, which turns out to be ultra vires or there has been some inaction in the performance of the duties, unless there is malice or conscious abuse. 13. In this case, the undisputed evidence available on record would show that for a B.C. candidate getting M.S.(O&G) seat, the required minimum mark was 75.52 and for other post-graduate courses like M.D.(Paediatrics), M.D.(Radiology), M.D.(Anaesthesia) etc., for a B.C.candidate, required minimum mark was 72.00. However, the first respondent/writ petitioner had obtained a total mark of 68.36, as she was only a non-service candidate. Even if she is provided with two additional marks for her experience, as held by the learned Single Judge, the total marks secured by her has to be computed only as 70.36. Even in such circumstances, by adding two more marks for the experience, she would not be entitled to get a seat either for M.S.(O&G) or any other M.D.Post-Graduate Courses. Further, as contended by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, the Prospectus is so clear, which specifically says that for getting marks towards experience in the service, one should have served not less than two years, as a candidate selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) and served in any Government Hospital, dispensary or hospitals relating to local bodies. In the present case, admittedly, the first respondent/writ petition was not selected by TNPSC and therefore, it is crystal clear that there is no callous, negligent or lethargic attitude by the second appellant or any other appellants, for awarding damages or costs in favour of the first respondent/writ petitioner. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the right of the first respondent/writ petitioner was not deprived and there could be no negligent or lethargic attitude on the part of the appellants 1 and 2 and there could be no malice or conscious abuse by the appellants 1 and 2. Therefore, there is no need for awarding any damages or costs in favour of the first respondent/petitioner payable by appellants. 14. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the writ appeal has to be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and Rs.25,000/- as costs, by appellants 1 and 2 to the first respondent/writ petitioner, has to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.