IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6287 of 2010(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- DR.S.USHAKUMARI, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O.PRADEEP.K.G, CIVIL SURGEON, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, VELINALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT "NANDANAM", DECENT JUNCTION P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.6287/2010 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ORDER NO.EB2-87131-08-DHS DTD. 26/03/2009 ALONG WITH FINAL SENIORITY LIST OF MEDICAL OFFICERS FOR MEDICAL P.G. COURSE 2009 UNDER HEALTH SERVICE QUOTA (RURAL AREA SERVICE). P2: COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE DTD. 8/01/2009 BY THE DMO, KOLLAM. P3: COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION OF MEDICAL P.G.COURSE 2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT D.M.E. P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF LIST OF GOVT. ALLOPATHIC MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS IN KERALA AS ON 31/12/2006 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DHS. P5: COPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DMO ON 18/01/2010 TO THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 19/01/2010 HAS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE 2ND SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP OF THE PETITIONER DTD.1/10/2004, 3/04/2006 AND 30/10/2007. P9: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PRELIMINARY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R4(A): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A1-5378/2010/DMO DTD. 8/03/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF KOLLAM CORPORATION. R4(B): COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 8/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE VADAKKEVILA ZONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM CORPORATION. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.6287 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner, a Civil Surgeon in the Health Services Department, applied for being considered for appointment to Medical Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses, 2010 for which Ext.P3 is the prospectus. She is eligible for being considered for the Rural Service Quota (RSQ), one among the five categories in Health Service Quota at clause VII (f) (iv) which relates to reservation of seats for service candidates. 2.RSQ would be available for candidates with minimum 5 years service in the department and who have minimum 2 years of service in Hospitals/Stations designated as Rural Station in the list of Government Allopathic Medical Institutions in Kerala as on 31.12.2006 published by the Director of Health Service; or minimum one year service as Casualty Medical Officer in the WPC.6287/10. 2 approved casualty units in Government Hospitals. Going by Ext.P7, the petitioner had served for more than two years in Hospitals/Stations designated as Rural Station in Ext.P4 list of Government Allopathic Medical Institutions in Kerala as on 31.12.2006. She is, therefore, eligible for being considered under the RSQ quota. The issue becomes relevant for her when a comparative evaluation would be made for seniority in the rank list for the selection because such seniority will be decided on the basis of the length of service in the categories falling under RSQ. Therefore, for the petitioner, the dice stands loaded against her in as much as, more than three years of her service from 21.6.2004 AN to 28.9.2007 FN in Public Health Centre, Palathara, Kollam is shown as in urban area, thereby meaning that it is not in rural area. She, therefore, would not be eligible to count that period in terms of Ext.P4 list. WPC.6287/10. 3 3.In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner contends that Ext.P4 list is irrational in as much as it identifies Public Health Centre, Palathara, Kollam as in urban area. It is further contended by her that there is no rationale in identifying an institution with reference to the municipal classification of territories into urban area or rural area because the prime concern of any classification that would be relevant for determining RSQ would be the quality of service and the duties and responsibilities that would be discharged in the rural service area, having regard to the nature of the population and the beneficiaries of Public Health Centre where the petitioner had worked. 4.Thirdly, she contends that Ext.P3 has been issued illegally in as much as the selection is made depending on the list of Government Allopathic Medical Institutions in Kerala as on 31.12.2006 without having any guidelines for identifying the rural area for the purpose of determining RSQ. It is pointed WPC.6287/10. 4 out that in the case of Difficult Rural Area Quota (DRAQ), Government Orders are issued from time to time for the purpose of identifying difficult rural areas for selection of candidates under DRAQ. It is also stated that there is no material to show as to when Ext.P4 list was issued, though it is stated to have been issued as on 31.12.2006. 5.Ext.P3 is the prospectus. That is the Magna Carta for the purpose of selection for courses in relation to which it is issued. The prospectus committee and the Government are involved in the process of drawing up and issuing the prospectus. Their competence to do so is not challenged. The prospectus has been made by including different categories of service. Having identified a particular quota as Health Service Quota and by including 5 categories therein, the competent authorities have decided a pattern for allotment of seats under such quota in a disclosed and published manner. This includes a category as Rural Service Quota. In their wisdom, the WPC.6287/10. 5 prospectus committee and the Government have concluded that RSQ can be filled up from among those doctors who have one year service as Casualty Medical Officer in the approved Casualty Units in the Government Hospitals, provided they have 5 years minimum service in the Department. That clause is not made with reference to rendering service in any rural area. In prescribing two years service in Hospitals/Stations designated as rural stations, Government and the prospectus committee thought it fit to rely on the list of Government Allopathic Medical Institutions in Kerala as on 31.12.2006. The existence of such a list cannot be disputed on the face of Ext.P4. A perusal of that document will show that hospitals/stations are identified either as rural or urban on the basis of their such classification in the context of the identity of local areas. It is not disputed, as stated in the counter affidavit, that the Public Health Centre, Palathara, Kollam is in Vadekkevila Grama Panchayat which was re-constituted and made part of Kollam Municipal Corporation from its inception WPC.6287/10. 6 on 1.10.2000. Therefore, from 1.10.2000, the Primary Health Centre, Palathara falls within the limits of Kollam Municipal Corporation limits, that is, an urban area. This fact not being disputed, it goes without saying that the petitioner cannot contend that such service should be treated as service in rural area. She worked in Primary Health Centre, Palathara only from 21.6.2004, nearly 4 years after the said institution came within the urban area. It is not a case where no yardstick has been fixed or that the yardstick fixed is to be held as wholly unreasonable, arbitrary or cryptic. Under such circumstances, even if it is the case where the Primary Health Centre, Palathara actually caters to a large sector of the population from what may be factually a rural background, it would be inappropriate for this Court to tinker with the prescriptions in Ext.P3 prospectus and the manner in which the Government and the prospectus committee have decided on the issue. Though the facts disclose the heart burn of the petitioner who was placed fairly high in the previous selection procedure, that WPC.6287/10. 7 would be insufficient to hold that there is any ground of illegality, to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the visitorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.09/04.