1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.04.2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE K. SUGUNA and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. ARUMUGHASWAMY W.P. (MD) No.3940 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 K. Anjana Aarthee : Petitioner vs. 1 Madurai Medical College represented by its Dean Madurai 2 The District Collector Trichirappalli : Respondents (R2 impleaded vide order dated 07.04.2011 passed in M.P. (MD) No.2 of 2011) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.17669/kf.1/2006 dated 22.03.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to undergo Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship Training Course with retrospective effect from 30.03.2011. For petitioner : Mr. G.R. Swaminathan For respondent : Mr. M. Rajarajan Government Advocate ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K. SUGUNA, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2010 by which the petitioner was directed to take steps in connection with verification to be done with regard to the community certificate produced by her to the effect that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she had joined M.B.B.S. course, which is a 5 ½ year course, in the academic year 2006-2007; as far as the first 4 ½ years is concerned, one has to undergo the academic studies during this period and the last one year of study is meant for undergoing internship, viz., Compulsory Rotatory Residential Internship; she had successfully completed 4 ½ years course, consequently, from 30.03.2011, she is eligible to undergo the internship course; however, she was not permitted to undergo the said course; on the other hand, by order dated 22.03.2010 which is under challenge in this writ petition, she has been directed to take steps to get a report from the concerned officer with regard to the genuineness of the community certificate produced by her. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the community certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of her joining the M.B.B.S. course was issued by the competent authority; but, till date, no orders have been passed cancelling the said certificate; consequently, the said certificate has to be accepted and the consequential benefit has to be given to the petitioner. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment reported in 2002 (4) CTC 734 J. Vijaya vs. The Dean Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore as well as 1998 (III) CTC 638, M. Ramamurthy vs. State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary, Revenue Department, Fort St. George, Madras – 9 and 2 others Apart from this, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not the duty of the petitioner to get the verification report from the District Collector; when once the community certificate is produced by the petitioner, it becomes the duty of the respondents to take follow up action and it is not the petitioner who has to take follow up action; consequently, after the production of the certificate issued by the competent authority, the petitioner's duty is over. Based on these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has to be quashed and the petitioner should be allowed to join the internship course. 4. However, it is the stand of the learned Government Advocate that the said report had already been sought from the District Collector, Trichy, as early as in November 2006 itself and subsequently, a reminder had been also sent; but, till date, no report has been received from the District Collector, Trichy; as per the instructions issued in D.O. Letter dated 29.09.2004, to undergo House Surgeon course, genuineness of the community certificate of the student concerned has to be secured and without that, the student is not eligible to undergo the said course; since in spite of the best efforts taken by the first respondent, that report has not been furnished by the District Collector, by the impugned order, for the interest of the student alone, such a direction has been issued in the impugned order. Based on these submissions, the learned Government Advocate has sought dismissal of the above said writ petition. 5. It is not disputed that at the time of joining the course, the petitioner had submitted the community certificate issued by the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that the community certificate produced by the petitioner is subject to verification by the Collector of the concerned District and as per the stand of the first respondent herein, all steps were taken from 2006, i.e., from the year during which the petitioner had joined the M.B.B.S. course and in spite of it, the same has not been secured from the Collector, Trichy District. 6. Though a stand has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the first respondent cannot direct the petitioner to take steps to get the verification report with regard to the certificate produced by her, if the petitioner is of this opinion, this order has been issued in April 2010 itself. Having received such an order in April 2010 itself, we are not able to understand as to why the petitioner had approached this Court only on 31st March 2011. Consequently, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner is devoid of merits and that cannot be accepted at all. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 7. However, yet another point to be taken note of in this writ petition is that the petitioner had already furnished her community certificate. But, so far, no order has been passed to the prejudice of the petitioner with regard to the said certificate and in spite of the steps taken by the first respondent, for the reasons best known to the second respondent, the report has not been sent. 8. Under such circumstances, for the lethargic attitude of the second respondent, we are of the considered view that the petitioner should not be penalised and she should be permitted to undergo House Surgeon course from 11.04.2011. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to undergo House Surgeon course from 11.04.2011. However, the second respondent is directed to furnish the report with regard to genuineness of the community certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of her joining the M.B.B.S. Course which has been forwarded to him by the first respondent in November 2006 itself on or before 30.04.2011. Based on the report to be submitted by the second respondent, the first respondent is at liberty to take further steps. With the above direction and observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Dean, Madurai Medical College, Madurai. 2.The District Collector,Trichirappalli. +1cc to The Special Govt.Pleader SR.No.13058 +1cc ot Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, Advocate SR.No.2102 W.P. (MD) No.3940 of 2011 and M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2011 cad PA/08.04.2011/3P/5C(IT) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/