IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28415 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. DR.N.V.PRAVEEN, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.DR.E.NATARAJAN, PRANAVAM, G.C. N. 133, T.C. 22/2127, MANAMMOOLA ROAD, PEROORKADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-5. 2. DR.JAYANTHI SUDHAKARAN, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.ANU V.S., V.S.MANDIRAM, SHIPLA NAGAR, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.ANIL SMT.R.RAMYA SRI.M.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 5. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, NEW DELHI-110001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH ADV.SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: AV WPC.NO.28415/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD OF THE IST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE ADMISSION CARD OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PROSPECTS FOR POST GRADUATE COURSES IN AYURVEDA VACHASPATHI M.D.(AY) 2011-2012 DATED 2/7/2011 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE RANK LIST. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26/8/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE AV ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 28415 of 2011 B ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner's complaint is regarding the number of seats that are earmarked for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates pursuant to Ext.P3, the prospectus for Post Graduate courses in Ayurveda Vachaspati MD for the academic year 2011-2012. 2. According to the petitioner, going by the provisions of the prospectus, keeping aside the seats set apart for persons with disabilities, 10% of the remaining seats under the State quota should be given to Scheduled Caste(8%) and Scheduled Tribe(2%) candidates. It is contended that, while they are entitled to a total of 10% of the State quota seats, Annexure-III to the prospectus will show that as against the available 104 seats, only 6 seats are given to Scheduled Caste and 2 seats are given to Scheduled Tribe. In other words, the complaint of the W.P.(C) No.28415/2011 : 2 : petitioner is that in allotting seats to the Scheduled Caste candidates, they lost two eligible seats. 3. However, Annexure-II to the prospectus indicates the manner in which the seats have been allotted. This shows that out of 120 seats, 20 seats have been earmarked towards service quota and 16 seats towards Outside State quota. Remaining 84 seats are in the state quota, which includes 3% seats earmarked for physically handicapped candidates, consisting of 3 seats. Therefore, the claim of reservation by Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates at 8% and 2% respectively has to be confined within the 84 seats earmarked in the State quota from which again 3 earmarked to physically handicapped candidates should be deducted. If so, it can be seen that the Scheduled Caste candidates were eligible only for 6 seats and Scheduled Tribe candidates were eligible only for 2 seats. Therefore, it can be seen that the allocation of seats has been correctly done and there is nothing illegal warranting interference. W.P.(C) No.28415/2011 : 3 : 4. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even after filling up the seats in the manner shown in the prospectus, there will be seats vacant in the service quota and that candidates like the petitioner shall be allotted to such seats. In my view, this is a matter for the respondents to consider and, therefore, I leave it open to the petitioner to approach the second respondent, in which event, it is open to the said authority to deal with such claims. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/04/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge