Divya Mohandoss represented by her father and guardian Dr. K.A. Mohandoss vs The Selection Committee for M.B.B.S. Admissions, Kilpauk Medical College Campus and Another

S.S. Subramani, J.—Petitioner is a minor and she is represented by her father, natural guardian.

Petitioner after passing plus two examinations appeared for the entrance examinations conducted by the Tamil Nadu Professional Courses. She

applied for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. course and she sought allotment under the quota ear-marked for Tamil Language Development.

The Government of Tamil Nadu had decided to fix a quota for children whose parents had worked for the enrichment, propagation and

development of Tamil language and who had made significant contribution to Tamil society, culture and literature. As per the terms of the

prospectus, the number of seats reserved for the above category is six. A committee of Tamil scholars would examine the claims of the eligible

persons whose children apply for the above mentioned special category quota. The publications made by the persons have to be scrutinized by the

Secretary, Selection Committee and the candidate should also submit a certificate from the Officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank

of Tahsildar of the respective area or a Member of Legislative Assembly or a Member of Parliament in support of their claim for admission on the

above mentioned grounds along with the application for consideration of their application under the category. After compliance of all the

conditions, the petitioner made her application for getting admission into the first M.B.B.S. course.

Petitioner obtained 261.75 marks, when the result was published, the petitioner''s number was not included in the admission list. On enquiry

petitioner came to know that out of six seats, two seats have been given to the family of Dr. E. Sundaramurthy, whose son has been impleaded as

second respondent herein. Dr. E. Sundaramurthy has twins by name Ezhilnambi and Elayanambi and both of them have been given seats in the

quota ear-marked under Tamil language development category. Second respondent obtained 267.42 marks and the last of the candidate in the list

had secured 263.25 marks.

It is the case of the petitioner that one of the sons of Dr. E. Sundaramurthy already obtained a seat in the same category four years back. Hence

the another child of Dr. E. Sundaramurthy i.e., second respondent is not entitled to be admitted under the same category.

It is said that grant of more than one seat to a family at the cost of another person whose father has also contributed to the development of Tamil

language would be against all canons of Justice and equity. The object of the scheme is to see that as far as possible the services of all the Tamil

scholars are equally recognised and to confer the seats on a particular family would be to monopolise the category and is violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution of India. It is said if this procedure is adopted, it will be only the children of certain individuals will be benefited and not the children

of Tamil scholars in general. The petitioner wanted to quash the admission of second respondent is concerned or at least include her name in the

admission list.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Selection Committee. It is said that six seats are reserved under the Special category. There

were 97 applications altogether and 22 applications were found in order with/reference to the enclosures and all the 75 applications were without

compliance of the relevant columns in prospectus. The committee after scrutiny of all the documents recommended the applications to the Selection

Committee.

As per the norms Ezhilnambi and Elayanambi were placed in Sl.Nos. 1 and 5 in the special list and also taking into consideration the interest of

merit and both of them were selected along with four others. It is said that there is no prohibition in providing admission to more than one member

from the same family if found eligible under the category unless the same is prohibited by the prospectus. It is also said that the petitioner who has

also applied under the special category is also bound by the prospectus and the same cannot be challenged. It prayed for dismissal of the writ

petition.

The Only point that requires consideration is whether the Selection Committee has applied the norms rightly in selection procedure.

The relevant portion of prospectus reads thus,

3.5(ii) Seats reserved for children whose parents worked for the enrichment, propagation and development of Tamil language and made significant

contribution to Tamil society, culture and literature. No. of seats Reserved in M.B.B.S. 6.

A Committee of Tamil scholars constituted by the Government will examine the claims and all published documents of the parents whose children

have applied for admission under this special category and offer their recommendations regarding their eligibility for consideration under this special

category. All publications in original should be submitted separately in person to the Secretary, Selection Committee on or before the last date

prescribed for submission of application. Failure to comply with this instruction is liable for disqualification.

The candidates should submit a certificate from an Officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar of the respective area or a

Member of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu or a Member of Parliament of Tamil Nadu, in support of their claim for admission on the above

mentioned grounds along with the application for consideration of their application under this category.

It is the case of the respondent that under this category 97 applications were received out of which 22 applications were found to be in order

and Expert Committee recommended 22 applications Who were eligible to be considered. On the basis of the said recommendation as to the

eligibility, the Selection Committee thereafter admitted six candidates in order of merit. The second respondent is also one of the candidates who

has been admitted under the category. The fact that the second respondent has scored more marks than the petitioner is not disputed. The opinion

of the Expert Committee is also not challenged in this petition. The only question is whether the Selection Committee was proper in selecting the

second respondent also when an-other seat has been given to his twin brother, who has been given first rank under the same category. The

argument is that such concession could be given only to one member of the family and if the procedure now taken by the Selection Committee is

accepted then the concession will cease to be concession to the children of the Tamil scholars in general but will amount to a concession to

individual Tamil scholars and the members of their family.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the reservation is for children whose parents worked for enrichment and development of

Tamil and naturally all parents who worked for enrichment of Tamil are eligible to be considered. If one parent has already been considered and

concession is given, another child of the same parent will not be entitled for the concession. The argument goes to the extent of saying that the

concession must be limited to one child of the parent and not more. The argument seems to be attractive. But on reading the entire terms of the,

prospectus, I do not think that the same could be accepted.

In N. Gayathri Malathi and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1997 Writ LR. 261, Justice Kanakaraj had occasion to consider the

procedure followed by the expert committee in such cases. In para 9 of the judgment, His Lordship held thus,

...All the same, I am of the opinion that heading under Clause 3.5(ii) of the prospectus itself indicates the consideration for eligibility. The

Committee was only expected to frame the procedure and the modality for finding out the requirements. As seen from the said heading I do not

therefore find fault with the respondents in allowing the committee to have its own method of finding out the eligible candidates. I have already set

out the guidelines framed by the committee and to this extent I must hold that the committee had not acted arbitrarily, but has proceeded on the

basis of certain norms....

Reservation of certain number of seats under special category for children whose parents worked for enrichment, propagation and

development of Tamil language and who made significant contribution to Tamil society, culture and literature is not a reservation for caste or

community but the same has been justified as identification of different source of selection for admission.

In N. Sri Rama Reddy, etc. Vs. V.V. Giri, , in paragraph 23, their Lordships considered similar question regarding reservation for children.

Their Lordships held,

...the Government is entitled to lay down sources from which selection for admission would be made. A provision laying down such sources is

strictly speaking hot a reservation. It is not a reservation as understood by Article 15 against which objection can be taken on the ground that it is

excessive....

And in paragraph 43 of the same judgment, the same principle was reiterated.

In G. Sumathi Vs. The Director of Medical Education, Madras and others, , the reservation under same category was held to be valid. Since it

is a source of admission for special category, the petitioner will have to prove that she is entitled to get admission in accordance with Rules of the

prospectus.

In Midhuna Nathan v. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, etc. and Ors. 1995 WL.R. 851, a Bench of this Court considered

what is defective prospective and how far it binds the parties. In para. 10 of the Judgment, it was held thus,

There is also no doubt that a prospectus issued by educational authorities is binding on the persons in charge of selection and they cannot deviate

from the norms and rules contained in the prospectus....

In paragraph 12 of the same judgment, it was further held thus,

It has been repeatedly held that prospectus issued by the University binds candidates who seek admission unless any term of the prospectus is held

to be illegal and the court cannot direct either amendment of prospectus or consideration of the claim of a candidate in the manner otherwise than

the terms provided in the prospectus.

In view of this binding precedent, neither the Selection Committee nor the candidate can go beyond the provisions of the prospectus. Both are

bound by the same. It must also be noted in this case that the petitioner has no case that the provisions of the prospectus is i1legal or the

concession is excessive. As held in Gayathri Malathi case 1997 WL.R. 261. when applications are received by the Selection Committee these

applications are sent to the expert committee constituted by the Government. The expert committee analyses those applications and consider the

eligibility of those children whose parents worked for enrichment, propagation and development of Tamil language. After working out the eligibility

the same is returned to the Selection Committee. When number of applications are more than the seats reserved under that category, naturally the

interest or merits will have to be considered. In this case, the first six candidates were admitted under special category. The petitioner was included

as wait list No. 1.

I do not think that the argument of the counsel that second respondent is not entitled to admission on the ground i.e., twin brother also already

been admitted into the course in the same category. On a reading of the clause, I do not think that the concession is limited to one member of the

family or one child of the family. If all the children are found eligible whose parents worked for the enrichment of the Tamil language and if it is also

found that they got merits, naturally they will have to be selected. The word used is ''children whose parents worked for enrichment.

If the second respondent is not selected and the petitioner is selected as now claimed, the Selection Committee will not have any answer for

not selecting him. He has got a better chance than the petitioner on merits. His parents are also found by the expert committee as worked for the

enrichment and propagation of Tamil language and also included in the eligible list. Merely because the parents has got twins that should not be a

disqualification for one.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner wanted to read the conditions of the prospectus that the distribution of seats for the children of parents

who have worked for the development of the Tamil language and therefore the benefit must be given to all the parents. Even if I accept the

argument, that is not going to benefit the petitioner in any way. The clause does not restrict the single family or single scholar. It applies to all the

scholars and the children of all eligible scholars are included under special category. The argument that only one child of scholar should be

provided with seat is to read the prospectus with modification or an exception. When the prospectus is clear, I do not think that the said argument

could be accepted. So long as the prospectus is not challenged Or the selection process is not challenged, I do not think any ground has been

made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The selection of the second respondent cannot be interfered with. If that

be so, petitioner also will not be entitled to get selected.

It is only proper on the part of the Government to make clear the point now urged by the petitioner. When the intention of the Government is

to encourage Tamil scholars in general, I feel that necessary safeguards should be made in the prospectus so that the children of all scholars can get

the, benefit of the Clauses. Of course it is for the Government to decide whether such clarification is required or not.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs, Consequently, the W.M.P.No. 21169 of 1998 is closed.