IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 1678 of 2010(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. DR. SHASHIKUMAR PILLAI, S/O.LATE PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, CIVIL SURGEON, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. DR.KARUNAN KANNAPOYILIL, S/O. CHATHU, AGED 53 YEARS, LECTURER, NEPHROLOGY (MEDICAL SPECIALITY, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE). BY ADVS. MR.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, MR.GEORGE MATHEWS. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE(S) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, KERALA. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.T.B. HOOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 2016 OF 2010 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.1678/2010 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 31/12/09 TO THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. P2: COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO MEDICAL POST- GRADUATE DEGREE/DIPLOMA COURSES - 2010. P3: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD.1/1/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).Nos.1678, 2016, 2407, 3551 & 3609 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.These writ petitions are filed by in-service doctors holding M.B.B.S. Degree and aspiring to join Post Graduation. 2.On the basis of the public requirement to provide higher education for in-service candidates, the Government earmarked certain quota as in-service quota for PG medical education. Then, the question arose as to whether those candidates have to appear for or succeed in the entrance examination. There was a legislation placed making such reservation. It was held that they need not undergo the entrance examination. 3.When the aforesaid reservation and age relaxation was subjected to challenge in W.P(C).2724/09, this Court held that WPC.1678/10 & con cases. 2 the age relaxation was sustainable. However, the Government were directed to consider whether such situation should prevail for all times to come. The Government thereupon took the view that the provision so made need not continue. This decision came through the Prospectus Committee, affirmed by the Government. This is under challenge. 4.The question whether the Prospectus Committee acted within jurisdiction or not is not a matter in issue. The wisdom of the Government and the Prospectus Committee in providing a particular classification among candidates on need basis and earmarking certain quota of seats for a particular category do not amount to a communal reservation. The policy in that regard is something that could be reviewed by the Government even every year, having regard to the facts and circumstances. The policy, unless shown to be totally irrational, would not be touched by the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court in judicial review. WPC.1678/10 & con cases. 3 5.Faced with the aforesaid situation, it is pointed out that the petitioners are those who would have got the benefit of the earmarking of seats for those above 47 years of age and that, on ground realities, time has not come to recall the proposal for providing service quota benefits to such persons. Under such circumstances, the petitioners confine their request to be one for a direction to the Government and the Prospectus Committee to provide an opportunity of hearing to them and to re-consider whether the provision for such service quota should be permitted to be available to get over the inequalities that may otherwise survive in the light of the earmarking of the quota. Taking the aforesaid submission into considerations, these writ petitions are ordered directing that the Government will provide the petitioners an opportunity of hearing in relation to the aforesaid matter. Let this be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.05/04.