IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16891 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.SINDHU SREEDHARAN ,W/O.R.AZAD BABU, D.D.WEST WINDS, LISIE HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH PO, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADVS. MR.T.R.RAVI MR.JAWAHAR JOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH), ERNAKULAM. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ADV.MR. M.A. ASIF - GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16891 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD 01.01.2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS PUBLISHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3; COPY OF THE ANNEXURE X CERTIFIED ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.1.2010. EXT.P5: COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.3.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF APPEAL DTD 19.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 19.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE LIST. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.13936/2010. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS WHO WERE ADMITTED FOR THE PG COURSE AFTER THE 1ST ROUND OF COUNSELLING. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PERTAINING TO THE 2ND ROUND OF COUNSELLING. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2009. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.12.2009. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 19.6.2009. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.16891 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of JUNE, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as an Assistant Surgeon in the Health Services Department of the Government of Kerala. He is an aspirant for an admission to Post Graduate Medical (Degree/Diploma) Courses in the Medical Colleges in Kerala State for the year 2010 under the Health Services quota. The admission in Health Services quota is based on service seniority. There is a weightage for rural service also. The seniority list for admission has to be prepared based on all these parameters. The petitioner claims that the petitioner’s actual rural service was not properly considered, while preparing the seniority list. Ext.P5 draft seniority list was prepared. According to the petitioner, against that draft seniority list the petitioner has filed Exts.P6 appeal by post and Ext. P7 by e-mail, which has not been considered. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.13936/10, in which this Court by Ext.P9 W.P.(c)No.16891/10 2 judgment directed consideration of his appeal. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the ground that no such appeal has been received. According to the petitioner, this is patently wrong, in so far as by Exts.P6 and P7 the petitioner had in fact filed an appeal. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “a) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to have her period of rural service reckoned from 10-7-1998 to 24-12-2009 for the purpose of considering her to the admission to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma in the Medical colleges in Kerala for the year 2010; b) Call for the records leading up to Ext.P10 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or such other writ order or direction; c) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext.P8 order and the appended list to the extent it places the petitioner at rank No.159 reckoning her rural service as only 7 years 11 months and 14 days; d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider the Petitioner’s rural service as 11 years 5 months and 23 days and to place her at the appropriate rank in Ext.P8” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. The learned Government Pleader vehemently opposes the contentions of the petitioner. He would submit that no appeal was received by the second respondent from the petitioner. Therefore, I directed the Government Pleader to obtain W.P.(c)No.16891/10 3 instructions from the Director of Health Services as to whether Exts.P6 and P7 have been received. Originally, the learned Government Pleader submitted that both were not received. Subsequently I passed an order on 16.6.2010 as follows: “If the petitioner seeks information regarding E- mail stated to have been sent by the petitioner to the Director of Health Services, the Internet Service Provider shall give the information to the petitioner.” Now the learned Government Pleader admits that Ext.P7 appeal has been received by e-mail. But he takes a contention that appeal by e-mail cannot be considered as a valid appeal, in so far as there is no practice of the Director of Health Services considering appeals received by e-mail. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner by producing Exts.P13 and P14 proceedings of the Director of Health Services points out that as evidenced by Exts.P13 and P14 there is a procedure in the office of the second respondent for accepting appeals in respect of service seniority by e-mail. 4. I am surprised that in the net-age we are living the respondents has taken a contention that they will not accept W.P.(c)No.16891/10 4 appeals by e-mail. Admittedly the 2nd respondent does have an e-mail address. I wonder for what purpose such an e-mail address is published if not receive appeals and other correspondence by e-mail. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner Exts.P13 and P14 show that there is in fact a procedure in the office of the second respondent of accepting appeals by e-mail. Of course, the learned Government Pleader would contend that Exts.P13 and P14 cannot be equated to appeals regarding seniority for the purpose of admission. I am unable to find any difference in the case of appeals regarding seniority in service and seniority for the purpose of admission. As such it was totally unjust on the part of the second respondent not to consider Ext.P6 appeal filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition to the extent of directing consideration of her appeal appropriately. Accordingly, Ext.P10 order is quashed. The second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date W.P.(c)No.16891/10 5 of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till the appeal is so disposed of, admissions for post graduate courses for the Health Services quota shall not be finalized and it shall be finalized only in accordance with the order to be passed in Ext.P6 appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.16891/10 6 W.P.(c)No.16891/10 7