IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 W.A.No. 1446 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.20273/2008 DATED 07/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- DR. SEIOS.J, AGED 26 YEARS, W/O. SALEEM. P.K, SALEEM MANZIL, PALLISSEREY KUZHIYIL HOUSE, ANAKKARA.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICLA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, POCKET 14, SECTOR B, DWARAKA PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110007, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1446 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 29th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellant had appeared for the Entrance Examination for admission to the Post Graduate Courses conducted by the second respondent, the Director of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram. After completing the process of selection, she was admitted to the course for Diploma in Clinical Pathology (DCP) on the basis of the option made by the her on June 9, 2008. It is not in dispute that the Centralized Allotment Process was completed on the next day, i.e. on June 10, 2008. 2. The grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that, she was denied admission to Diploma in Radiotherapy (DMRT) inspite of availability of vacancy. According to the appellant, the request of re-allotment or change of option made by her ought to have been accepted by the second respondent. Since the second respondent did not accede to the above request, the appellant prayed for appropriate reliefs in the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge noticed the stand taken by the second respondent that re-allotment could not have been made since the W.A.No.1446 of 2008 2 last date for allotment had already expired on June 10, 2008. In this connection the learned Judge also took note of the clear directive issued by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Mridhul Dhar (Minor) and Another v. Union of India and others (2005 (2) SCC 65) to adhere to the time schedule while granting admission to Medical Courses. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to Clause XI (C) of the Prospectus for Admission to Medical Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses, 2008. The said clause reads thus: “(C) Re-allotment (i) After the CAP, the vacancies arising due to non- joining and discontinuation of candidates will be filled in subsequent re-allotment process(es) based on the options filed by them and on the basis of rank. Whenever a vacancy arises in a subject after the first selection candidate having higher option in that subject will be moved over as per their ranks. The candidates already selected and joined for a course, when moved over to another subject/college on re- allotment will have to compulsorily accept that allotment.” (ii) Newly allotted candidates will have to remit the required fee in the respective Medical Colleges. W.A.No.1446 of 2008 3 (iii) If a candidate changes over from one course to another in the same college, the fees paid for the already allotted course will be adjusted to the new course. However, movement from one college to another by re- allotment will entail the payment of all fees except the tuition fees. Candidates can seek for refund of all other fees in the earlier allotted college. The above rule will also apply to shifting of All India Quota candidates within the State. (iv) The final centralised allotment process shall be done prior to the last date for admission fixed by the Government of India/Supreme Court of India. The final CAP and admission will be done simultaneously. Candidates have to pay the liquidated damages as specified in clause XIII, if they discontinue the Course after the final CAP to Medical PG Course. If any vacancy arises after the final CAP, it is the discretion of the Director of Medical Education to fill up those vacancies in consultation with the Government, if necessary. Therefore, the students who regularly contact the office of the Director of Medical Education after the final CAP will be considered for those seats according to their option. (emphasis supplied) (v) Additional seats, if any, added/sanctioned during the validity period of the rank list will be filled in W.A.No.1446 of 2008 4 accordance with the options registered by the candidates at the time of CAP. (vi) No allotment/transfer to PG Medical Courses will be done under any circumstance after the last date of admission prescribed by the Government of India/Supreme Court.” 5. It is true that sub-clause (iv) of the above clause stipulates that if any vacancy arises after the final Centralized Allotment Process, it would be left to the discretion of the Director of Medical Education to fill up those vacancies in consultation with the Government, if necessary. The sub-clause further provides that the students who regularly contact the office of the Director of Medical Education after the final Centralized Allotment Process will be considered for those seats according to their option. 6. It is pointed out by the appellant that the respondents have admitted that four vacancies are now available to DMRT Course, two each at Thiruvananthapuram and Calicut. It is contended by the appellant that no prejudice would be caused to any other candidate and no quota rule will be disturbed if the appellant is admitted to one of the four vacant seats. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that no other claimant W.A.No.1446 of 2008 5 has reportedly approached the respondents so far for allotment of a seat in the speciality (DMRT) Therefore, the refusal to allow re-allotment is totally unjust, it is contended. 7. Per contra, Sri.Alexander Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, the Medical Council of India, draws our attention to clause XV of the Prospectus and submits that “re-allotment would be considered only before the closing of admission as per the guidelines/directives of the Medical Council of India/Honourable Supreme Court of India”. He also draws our attention to the various directions issued by the apex Court in a series of cases in this regard. 8. As mentioned earlier, appellant was allotted a seat for Diploma in Clinical Pathology as opted by her. The last date for giving option was June 10, 2008. Appellant wanted to switch over to DMRT after the cut-off date. But this is not permissible under the Prospectus. It is true that four seats in DMRT are now lying vacant. Learned Government Pleader after getting instructions submitted that appellant can be accommodated against one of the vacancies if this Court directs. But in view of the clauses contained in the Prospectus and also the directive issued by the apex Court, we are not inclined to issue any direction. W.A.No.1446 of 2008 6 9. Having considered the rival contentions of the appellant and the respondents, we do not find any reason to take a different view contrary to what has been held by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns