IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13728 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DR.MANOJ KUMAR G., S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PULIKKAL MADAM, THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF EKRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, PSC. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 13728/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENING TEST CERTIFICATE DT.27.6.3 ISSUED BY THE ROSTOV MEDICAL UNIVERSITY. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE GRADING CERTIFICATE DT.28.6.03 ISSUEDBY THE ROSTOV MEDICAL UNIVERSITY. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT.7.4.08ISSUEDBY THE NATINAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION DT.21.11.06 WITH THE MEDICAL COUNSEL OF INDIA. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE EQUIVALENT TO MBBS CERTIFICATE DT.7.12.06 ISSUED BY THE KERALA UNIVERSITY. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 7.12.06 ISSUED BY UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS APPEARED MALAYALA MANORA DAILY DT.19.3.08. EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RANK LIST ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.4.08 BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 13728 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a graduate in medicine which degree was obtained from the Rostov State Medical University in Russia. He completed his one year internship in Kerala. He also underwent the screening test conducted by the Medical Board of Examinations successfully for students who studied abroad. Consequently his qualification is accepted as equivalent to MBBS degree issued by the Kerala University. Pursuant to notification invited by the PSC, the petitioner applied for the selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Health Service Department of Kerala. However, he found that his rank No. is 1880 in Ext.P1 rank list prepared by the PSC which contained only a total No.1913 candidates. According to the petitioner, since the ranking is based on the aggregate of marks obtained in the qualifying examination and the interview, the petitioner should have found a higher rank in so far as going by Exts.P1 and P2 petitioner should have secured at least 60% marks in the qualifying examination which has not been taken into account for WPC : 13728/08 -:2:- award of rank. According to the petitioner, those from University in India who had secured only 50 to 55 % in the qualifying examination had secured much higher rank than the petitioner. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the respondents to call for the records connected with the case and re-issue the Rank List without excluding any of the marks secured by the petitioner in his qualifying Degree examination and assign appropriate position in the Rank List. ii. to issue a declaration that the petitioner cannot be discriminated in the matter of selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon for the reason of his having completed his medical education from a Russian University and his Rank cannot be brought down in the Rank List after excluding certain marks secured by him in his qualifying examination.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the PSC in which it is admitted that the criterion for selection is by adding percentage of marks secured in the final MBBS (Part I and Part II) to the interview marks out of 20. According to them, this method has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.356/08. It is further submitted that when it was found that mark list of certain candidates who obtained MBBS degree from the Universities in the erstwhile USSR and other East European countries are substantially different WPC : 13728/08 -:3:- from those awarded by Indian Universities, they approached the Medical Council of India for standardisation of the marks. A Sub Committee of the Medical Council of India examined the issue in detail. Thereafter they recommended that where grades only are given by foreign Universities, the grading as satisfactory should be considered as 50% marks, when it is good it should be considered as 55%, and, when it is excellent it should be considered as 60% marks. The petitioner, as is evident from Ext.P1, has been given grades for each subject ranging from satisfactory to excellent. Accordingly, the petitioner’s grade in the subjects for Part I and Part II of final year MBBS examination were converted into marks as per recommendations of the Medical Council of India and he has been included in the rank list on the basis of those marks. According to the PSC, there is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the PSC and that was the only way by which ranking could have been done. 3. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the very same University which awarded the degree had in Ext.P2 certificate opined that the conversion of the grading into marks could be 60 to 69 for satisfactory, 70 to 84 for good and 85 to 100 for excellent. WPC : 13728/08 -:4:- Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contends that, the marks should have been awarded to the petitioner based on that criterion and not the criterion suggested by the Medical Council of India. 4. I am of opinion that, first of all Ext.P2 is not reliable at all. No candidate in any of the Universities in Kerala or India would get even 70% marks for the MBBS degree. In Ext.P2, for excellent, up to 100 marks have been prescribed. Even for satisfactory up to 69% is prescribed which cannot be taken as a yardstick for conversion of the grades into marks at all. Even otherwise, Ext.P2 is only an opinion of that University. Insofar as the Medical Council of India, which is the ultimate statutory body in the matter of medical education in India, has after comparing the standards of medical education in USSR and in India prescribed the particular criterion to convert the grades into marks. There is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in the PSC adopting that criterion. In that view, I do not find any merit in the contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb WPC : 13728/08 -:5:-