IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:- THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 W.A.No.894 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.6537/2008, DATED 07/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- -------------------------------------- DR. NEBU JOHN, ASSISTANT SURGEON, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, VELLANAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- H.L.Dattu, C.J. & A.K.Basheer, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No.894 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant, who is stated to be working as Assistant Surgeon in the Health and Family Welfare Department under the Government of Kerala, has filed this Writ Appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition by the learned single Judge. 2. In the writ petition, the primary prayer made by the appellant was to declare that he is entitled to get admission to P.G.Course for the year 2008 under the Service Quota and that his claim for admission ought to have been considered ignoring the change in the norms for selection to the P.G.Course. The ancillary prayer in the writ petition was to issue a writ of mandamus to respondents 2 and 3 to consider Exhibit P5 representation submitted by him and to keep one seat reserved in the P.G.Course pending decision on the said representation. 3. The learned Judge, after considering the entire materials on record, found that the appellant/petitioner was not eligible to be admitted to the P.G.Course. It was also noticed by the learned Judge that the request allegedly made by the appellant under Rule 39 of the General Rules cannot be made applicable in his case. W.A.No.894 of 2008 - 2 - 4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he would have become eligible for admission if only his probation had been declared way back in the year 2001. It is true that the appellant had joined the service in November, 1999 and under normal circumstance, his probation ought to have been declared in 2001 itself. Appellant has made several allegations against the former Director and imputed that he was harbouring personal vendetta against the appellant. According to the appellant, the Director had delayed declaration of his probation because of personal vengeance. But, admittedly, appellant's probation was declared only by order dated January 10, 2008, as is revealed from Exhibit P4. Of course, the said order indicates that it shall be deemed that appellant had completed his probation satisfactorily on the forenoon of November 23, 2001. 5. The crucial question is whether the appellant could be considered to have qualified for admission to the P.G.Course. It is beyond controversy that all service candidates have to write the Entrance Examination for P.G. admission and obtain a minimum of 50% marks to be eligible for consideration. It is on record that the appellant had obtained only 266 out of 1200 marks, which is apparently below the minimum requisite percentage. Obviously, therefore, the appellant was not included in Exhibit R3(e) list of candidates published by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. That being the position, the appellant, after having written the examination and having not been qualified, was not entitled to pray for issue of a writ of W.A.No.894 of 2008 - 3 - mandamus to consider his candidature for admission to the P.G.Course. 6. We have also perused Exhibit P5 representation which is stated to have been submitted by the appellant. In our view, the said request cannot be treated as one seeking exemption under Rule 39 of the General Rules. Further, the provisions contained in the said Rule would not be applicable in the case of the appellant at all. In any view of the matter, we do not find any ground to uphold the contentions raised by the appellant. In our view, the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, while confirming the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer vku/- Judge