IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2010 / 8TH ASHADHA 1932 WA.No. 1098 of 2010 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.13474/2010 Dated 24/06/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1, 2, 4 & 5: --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 011 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001 4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.B.HOOD RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENT NO.3: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. DR.ARUN KUMAR D, 'CITADEL',KUNNAMANGALAM PO, KOZHIKODE - PIN 673 571 2. DR.JITHIN LAL M 'AMMINI', CHEVAYUR PO, KOZHIKODE PIN 673 017 3. DR.ANNAPOORNA, AMRUTHA BHAVANAM HOUSE NO.38A, CHEMBAKA NAGAR ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1 WA NO.1098 OF 2010 - 2 - 4. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, NEW DELHI. R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1098 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by an interim order dated 24th June, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.13474 of 2010 by which a learned Judge of this Court issued certain directions to the State regarding the manner of computation of reservation of the seats in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates seeking admission to the postgraduate medical courses in the State of Kerala, the instant appeal is preferred by the State of Kerala. 2. In view of the pendency of the writ petition, we do not propose to go in detail into the various aspects of the matter as any observation made in the instant appeal is likely to have a bearing on the merits of the writ petition which is still pending. We, therefore, state only the bare necessary facts. W.A.No.1098 of 2010. - 2 - 3. In the year 1971, the State of Kerala issued G.O.Ms.No.131/71/Edn. dated 6.8.1971 by which the State took a decision to reserve 10% of the seats in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes students in the Medical, Engineering, Agriculture, Law and Veterinary Colleges. It is further stipulated therein that the said percentage of reservation is also made applicable even to postgraduate courses in Government colleges. 4. In the year 2008, the Legislature of Kerala made a law known as the Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008 which mandates that the State shall provide a reservation in favour of the persons serving the State of Kerala (Section 5 of the said Act). However the said Section does not prescribe the percentage of seats to be provided, but only prescribes the upper limit of 40% in favour of the abovementioned service candidates. 5. The question in the writ petition is as to how the W.A.No.1098 of 2010. - 3 - 10% quota reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates is required to be computed. In other words, whether 10% quota is to be computed on the total number of seats available for the Government to be filled up or the said 10% is to be computed after excluding the seats reserved in favour of the candidates belonging to the service of the State, etc. 6. The prospectus issued for the selection of the candidates for the current year contained two clauses, VI.a. and VI.c., which on a plain reading appear contradictory. In view of the said contradiction, the State came out with a clarification dated 15.1.2010 which is the subject matter of dispute in the instant litigation. 7. By the order under appeal, the learned Judge of this Court came to a tentative conclusion that the impugned clarification is not sustainable. 8. The view taken by the learned Judge, in our view, cannot be said to be a wholly impossible view. That being the W.A.No.1098 of 2010. - 4 - case, it is the settled principle of law that we shall not interfere with the view taken by a learned Judge of this Court merely on the ground that there is another possible view of looking at the matter. It must be remembered that this is an intra court appeal and more particularly an appeal against an interlocutory order. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns