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 FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 1274 of 2008 ----------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.No.17683/2008 Dated 13/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ DR.RAJI K.L., W/O.SUMITH, ULLIRUPPIL, KADAPPAKADA KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) & SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED Y THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR & REHABILITATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. DR.SEEMA V.VISWANIKETANAM MURUNTHAL, PERINAD P.O., KOLLAM, PRESENTLY POST GRADUATE STUDENT (RADIO DIAGNOSIS), MEDICAL COLLEGE, THRISSUR. R1 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1274 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 20th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The appellant herein was the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17683/2008. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner/appellant had called in question the selection of the 5th respondent for Post Graduate Studies under the service quota. According to the appellant, the 5th respondent is ineligible to get selection to the said course. It is further stated that the appellant is senior to the 5th respondent and ignoring her claim, respondents 1 to 3 should not have granted admission to the 5th respondent to prosecute her studies in Post Graduate Course. 2. In the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner/appellant has approached the first respondent, namely the Director, Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram and also the Director of Insurance Medical Services, Thiruvananthapuram to cancel the admission given to the 5th respondent and then select the appellant to prosecute the Post Graduate Course in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis). 3. In our view, the petition filed by the petitioner is wholly premature and on that short ground the learned Single Judge could have rejected the writ petition. 4. In the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal the WA.No.1274/2008 -2- petitioner/appellant alleges that by playing fraud on the authorities the 5th respondent has secured admission in the Post Graduate Studies and it is further stated that though this was brought to the notice of respondent authorities by filing representation dated 10-6-2008, nothing has been done by them. In our view, it was expected of the authorities to have considered that representation and should have passed appropriate orders. Since that has not been done, appropriate direction requires to be issued. 5. Accordingly, while disposing of this writ appeal, we direct the Director of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram and the Director, Insurance Medical Services, Thiruvananthapuram to consider the representation filed by the petitioner/appellant in accordance with law, after due notice to the petitioner/appellant and the 5th respondent. All the contentions of the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS/dk.