Dr. S. Hari Rama Subramanian vs The Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education and The State of Tamil Nadu

M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the prospectus of the academic year 2009-2010,

issued by the first respondent for the Post Graduate Diploma/Degree/M.D.S/Five Year M.Ch. (Neuro-Surgery) Courses, in so far as it disallows

the petitioner to change his speciality already chosen by him during the first round of counselling and to direct the first respondent to conduct fresh

counselling for the four seats in M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery, on merit basis.

It has been stated that the petitioner is a Doctor holding M.B.B.S. Degree. He was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon in the Directorates of the

second respondent, from the year, 2006, after passing the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission entrance examinations. Therefore, the petitioner

is qualified to be considered as a ''service candidate'' for the purpose of admission to P.G. Seats in Government Medical Colleges. In the first

round of counselling, which had commenced, on 2.4.2009, only two seats had been allotted for the M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. Further, both

these seats were allotted to the candidates based on community reservation. Accordingly, one seat had been allotted to Most Backward Class

private candidate and the other seat had been allotted to Most Backward Class service candidate. Even though the petitioner has the necessary

qualifications and the merit, he was not selected for M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course.

The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that only two seats has been released/sanctioned by the respondents, initially, for

the M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. The petitioner had not been selected for the said course even though he has sufficient merit, only due to the

reason the respondents had adhered to community reservation, contrary to the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated

20.5.2009, wherein it was held that M.Ch Neuro-Surgery course is a super speciality course and therefore, the admission to the said course had

to be based only on merit, without following community reservation.

Further, it has been stated that the respondents had released two more seats during the second counselling, said to be from the All India Quota,

even though the medical seats offered by the second respondent to All India Quota does not contain M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery. Since the petitioner

had not been called for the second counselling he has lost the opportunity to get the course of his choice, namely, M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. In

such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the Supreme Court, by its order, dated 15.6.2009, made in

Appeal (Civil) No(s). 14014-14015 of 2009, had stayed the order of the Division Bench, of this Court, dated 12.5.2009, made in W.A. No. 763

of 2007 and W.A. No. 764 of 2007. Therefore, it was open to the respondents to follow the community reservation for admission to M.Ch.

Neuro-Surgery course. Further, M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course cannot be treated as a super speciality course. It has also been stated that second

counselling had been held for the two additional seats in M.Ch. Neuro-surgery course released from the All India Quota. Since the petitioner had

already been selected in M.S. Opthalmology in Tirunelveli Medical College, he was not eligible to participate in the second counselling held for the

two additional seats of M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. Further, the counseling for the M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course had already been held, on

16.6.2009. In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits. As the

writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed.

In view of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the

petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, at this stage. The prospectus of

the academic year 2009-2010, issued by the first respondent, as it stands, makes it clear that once a candidate is admitted in a particular discipline

by way of counselling, he would not be eligible to be considered for admission in any other course. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court, by

its order dated 15.6.2009, made in Appeal (Civil) No(s).14014-14015 of 2009, had stayed the order of the Division Bench, dated 12.5.2009,

made in W.A. No. 763 of 2007 and W.A. No. 764 of 2007, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim that the admissions to Post Graduate

Degree or Diploma Course in medicine are to be held only on the basis of merit, without following communal reservation. In such circumstances,

the petitioner cannot claim that he should be considered for admission to M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course, for the academic year 2009-2010, for the

additional seats released from the All India quota, for which the counselling had already been held, on 16.6.2009. In such circumstances, the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are closed.