IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2011 / 2ND ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 15598 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR. BIJI.K.P, LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF ANESTHESIOLOGY, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION KERALA AND THE CONVENER OF POST GRADUATE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR PG GRADUATE MEDICAL COURSES, TRIVANDRUM. AG SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI GP SRI. T.B.HOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 15730 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15598 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, TVM, DATED 29.7.09 EXT.P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.5.10 EXT.P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 5.1.11 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION EXT.P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULTS PUBLISHED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION EXT.P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GO (MS) NO.93/09/H &FWD DATED 30.3.09 EXT.P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 6.4.11 (True Copy) P.A To Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C)s.15598 & 15730/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.The grievance of the petitioners appears to be common, ie., with regard to admission for the Medical P.G Courses for the current year in respect of 'Service Quota', though the nature of contentions and challenge is slightly different. 2.Both the petitioners are Lecturers and belong to the Medical Education Service. As per the stipulations prescribed in the prospectus, the minimum required service of 'one year' is necessary for being qualified to contest for the Service Quota, earmarked to an extent of 40% of the total seats provided under the Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Post Graduate Courses, under Service Quota Act, 2008. 3.The petitioner in W.P.(C).15598/2011 contends that she is having much temporary service as well and if the same is counted, she will have the total service of more than 'one year', which in turn is sought to be declared. The said petitioner places reliance also on Ext.P6 - GO(MS) No.93/09/H & FWD dated 30.3.09, produced W.P.(C).15598 & 15730/2011 2 therein, showing the power vested with the Government to relax the minimum service in respect of any category. 4.The petitioner in W.P.(C).15730/2011 seeks to challenge Clause VII(a)(2) of Ext.P1 prospectus therein which stipulates a minimum period of 'one year' as qualifying service for candidates seeking for admission to the Medical P.G Course in the 'Service Quota' in respect of Medical Education Service. 5.Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 6.With regard to the contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C). 15598/2011 to count the temporary service as part of the qualifying service, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that temporary service is not liable to be reckoned by virtue of the specific terms as declared in the prospectus and unless and until the said provisions are set aside on valid grounds, no interference is possible. This Court finds considerable force in the submission made from the part of the learned Government Pleader. W.P.(C).15598 & 15730/2011 3 7.Today, a batch of writ petitions (W.P.(C).11141/2011 and connected cases) pertaining to the candidates belonging to the Health Services Department and contesting for the 'Service Quota', was considered and disposed of with reference to the decision taken by the Government to give relaxation in the matter of qualifying service to the specified extent, subject to certain conditions. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that, consequential orders were being passed by the Government, in terms of the decision, incorporating the conditions as above. 8.In the above circumstances, it is for the petitioners to challenge the above proceedings/orders, if they stand detrimental to the interest of the petitioners in any manner and if such challenge is otherwise sustainable in law. Without prejudice to the rights and liberties in this regard, interference is declined and both the writ petitions are dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs