IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18264 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- DR.M.P.LIJI, W/O.DR.NAVA JEEV RAJ, MEKKAM VALLI HOUSE,, MLA ROAD, KUNNAMANGALAM POST, KOZHIKODE-673 571. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (S), DEPARTMENT , SECRETARIT,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 3. THE PMS COLLEGE OF DENTAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH, VATTAPPARA,THIRUVANANTHPAURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P. NARAYANAN R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 WP(C).No. 18264 of 2010 EXHIBITS ------------ PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :- ------------------------------ P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 04.06.2010 P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT.17.09.2008 P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.05.2010 P5:- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.25.05.2010 P6:- A TRUE COPY OF THE FAX DT.09.06.2010 BYTHE PETITIONER. P7:- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT. 09.06.2010 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :- -------------------------------- R-3(a) :- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. FNO.V.12017/28/2008-DE DT. 17.5.10 ISSUED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT R-3(b) :- TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.PMS/2436/18-5-2010/UOK/OUT DT. 18.5.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SND RESPONDENT. R-3(c) :- TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. PMS/C/MDS/GOVT/PO/0230/3724 DT. 28.5.10 SUBMITTED BYTHE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. R-3(D) :- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DT.1.6.10 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ W.P.(C). Nos.18264 & 19538 OF 2010 ============================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT These writ petitions relate to the same subject matter. In W.P. (C) No.18264 of 2010 the petitioner is a candidate advised by the Director of Medical Education for admission to the MDS course in Prosthodontics to the 3rd respondent's College in the Government quota. But she has not been admitted by the College apparently on the ground that there is no seat available in that College to accommodate the petitioner for the reasons canvassed by the College in W.P.(C).No.19538/2010. W.P.(C)No.19538/2010 is filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C).No.18264 of 2010, wherein they challenge the distribution of seats for various specialties in their College by Ext.P6 order of the Government. The crux of the problem is as follows: 2. The Government entered into an agreement with various Self Financing Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges in Kerala for making admissions to Medical and Dental courses in ratio of 50:50 between Government quota and Management quota. A specific agreement has also been executed between the Government and the College W.P.(C). Nos.18264 & 19538 OF 2010 2 involved in this writ petition to that effect. As to the distribution of seats the Government has issued Ext.P1 order. The conditions stated therein in respect allotment of seats are as follows: 1. Admission to the MDS course will be done on the basis of merit as per the Examination, Government of Kerala. 2. 50% of the seats in each specialization subject will be Government merit seats and allotted by Government on the basis of merit. Balance 50% seats will be management seats and will be allotted on the basis of entrance merit from the candidates qualifying entrance examination. 3. Annual Fees for Government merit seats will be Rs.75,000/- and that for Management seats will be Rs.5,00,000. 4. If there are odd numbers of seats in any subject, the seats will be rotate between the Management and Government in alternative years. If there is a single seat only in any subject, the first admission go to management quota. According to the College, in respect of the specialties of Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics, three seats each have been allotted to the College. They would contend that going by condition No.4 of Ext.P1, since three is an odd number, the first seat should go to Management quota, second to Government quota and third to Management quota. That position would be reversed next year. Therefore, both in Conservative Dentistry and Prosthodontics two seats have to be filled up in the Management quota is their contention. But by Ext.P6, the College has been directed by the Government to fill up two seats in Management quota and one seat by Government quota for Conservative Dentistry and two seats in W.P.(C). Nos.18264 & 19538 OF 2010 3 the Government quota and one seat in the management quota for Prosthodontics, which according to the College is against the agreement between the parties. According to the College in both specialties the counting should start from management quota and for this year two seats each have to be filled up in the management quota and one each in the Government quota, which position has to be reversed next year. Therefore the College has denied admission to the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.18264/2010 on the premise that in Prosthodontics, there is only one seat in the Government quota which has been filled up by another candidate. 3. The Government Pleader would contend that in view of the fact that both the specialties have odd number of seats, Government has decided to make an equitable distribution by allotting two seats in the Management quota in Conservative Dentistry and two seats in Prosthodontics in the Government quota. According to him such distribution does not in any way run contrary to the terms of Ext.P1 and more over that is the most equitable distribution also. He further points out that the Management is not any way prejudiced by the same in so far as during the next year the position would be reversed. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. For clause No.4 in Ext.P1, three different interpretations are W.P.(C). Nos.18264 & 19538 OF 2010 4 possible. First is that in both specialties, two seats should go to the Management quota this year. The second interpretation is that, in both specialties two seats should go to the Government quota this year. The third is the interpretation put by the Government. The Management puts stress on the fact that the word management occurs first in clause No.4 and therefore, the counting should start with Management quota. I am not satisfied that such a straight- jacketed interpretation should be adopted for clause No.4. The occurrence of the word 'Management' in Ext.P4, first is only accidental. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the distribution adopted by the Government which is a very equitable distribution and does not any way affect the Management in so far as the position would be reversed during the next year. In the above circumstances, WP.(C) No.19538/2010 is dismissed. WP.(C).No.18264/2010 is allowed and the 3rd respondent in that writ petition is directed to admit the petitioner to the MDS course in Prosthodontics as advised by the Government forthwith. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. pm