IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 306 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. JEMSHITH YUSEPH C.P., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.YUSEPH.N., UMMAIYAS, P.O.NIRMALAGIRI, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR-6. 2. SANJITH GEORGE, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.E.P.GEORGE, EDASSERY HOUSE, CHEMBAKA COLONY, CHEVAYUR P.O., CALICUT-17. 3. AJAY.O., AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.VENUGOPALAN.K, KALLUVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.ELTHURUTH, THRISSUR 680 611. 4. NAVYA.R.NADH, AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.K.A.RAVEENDRA NADH, KUMAROTH HOUSE, RAJADEEPAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI 682 006. BY MR.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 4. DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. Kss ..2/- ...2... WPC.NO.306/2009 J *ADDL.R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED: R5. DR.AJITH KUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT DENTAL SURGEON, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, CHAVAKKAD, RESIDING AT PAYYANNUR, KANNUR. (*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 13/03/2009 IN I.A.NO.3497/09) R6. DR.JAYALAKSHMI P.S., 'ANU', B- 52, VRINDAVAN COLONY, CHEVAYUR, CALICUT – 17. (*ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 18/03/2009 IN I.A.NO.3643/09) R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF R3 & R4 BY ADV.MR.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI ADDL.R5 BY ADV.MR.M.V.AMARESAN ADDL.R6 BY ADV.MR.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL BY ADV.MR.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.306/2009 J APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT: P1: COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO THE POST GRADUATE COURSE IN DENTAL SURGERY IN THE DENTAL COLLEGES – 2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.306 of 2009 ------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners, who are holders of BDS Degree, applied for admission to the Post Graduate Course in Dental Surgery (MDS) in different colleges. They are required to pass an Entrance Examination held by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. They are aggrieved by Clause 8(b) of Ext.P1 prospectus to the extent it is relevant: “D. Scheme of examination and method of evaluation: The entrance examination will consist of one paper of 3 hours duration containing 200 Objective Type (Multiple Choice) Questions. There will be a single version for the question paper, which will be in the form of a booklet. For each question, four suggested responses will be given as choices A, B, C and D, of which only one will be the MOST APPROPRIATE ANSWER and the candidate, W.P.(C).No.306 of 2009 :: 2 :: has to select, and mark the bubble corresponding to the most appropriate response in the separate OMR Answer Sheets provided. All entries in the OMR sheet, including filling of bubbles should be done using ballpoint pen only. (Blue or Black). Each correct response will be awarded 4 (Four) Marks. Negative marking will be adopted for incorrect response. One mark will be deducted for each incorrect response and no mark will be given for the question not answered. More than one answer indicated against a question will be deemed as incorrect response and will be negatively marked. (For Service Quota candidates who appear for the common Entrance Test, separate rank list will be prepared. The scheme of Examination and method of evaluation for them will be same as in para (1) & (2) above; except that there will be no negative marking for incorrect responses). 2. It is contended that service quota candidates, though required to appear in the Entrance Examination, are given the benefit of method of valuation which does not involve negative marks for incorrect answers. It is contended that W.P.(C).No.306 of 2009 :: 3 :: once it has been decided that there will be a Common Entrance Examination for general merit candidates and service quota candidates, then it is irrational to give a weightage or a benefit to service quota candidates by providing that they will not be subjected to negative marking. This, learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Ramprasad Unni submits results in irrational classification of persons, who are otherwise treated on the same footing with no nexus with the object to be achieved thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The Government as also the contesting respondents have filed counter affidavit. 4. I heard Mr.Ramprasad Unni learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.Asif, Mr.Alexander Thomas for the 3rd respondent and Mr.Sajeevkumar K.Gopal for the contesting respondents. W.P.(C).No.306 of 2009 :: 4 :: 5. It cannot be gainsaid that there is a separate quota for in-service candidates. No doubt, they are also required to participate in the Entrance Examination. But the benefit of being exempted from negative marking is available only in relation to admissions under the service quota. The petitioners are not entitled to apply for service quota for the simple reason that they are not service candidates. Ex facie, therefore, the petitioners cannot consider themselves aggrieved by a liberalised approach adopted in the case of service quota candidates in evaluating their marks in the Entrance Examination. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a challenge has been mounted only because if the system of negative marking is adopted to service quota candidates, a resultant situation will arise where most of the aspirants would fail in the Entrance Examination thereby resulting in such seats W.P.(C).No.306 of 2009 :: 5 :: becoming available to general quota candidates. In my view, this remote possibility by itself may not afford adequate justification for the petitioners to mount a challenge against the method of evaluation adopted in the case of service quota candidates. 6. Even otherwise, I am not impressed by the argument that the method of evaluation is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. After all, service quota candidates fall in a separate category. As a matter of fact, even if a separate Entrance Examination is conducted, it may not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. I also take note of the fact that by an Act recently passed by the State Legislature, service quota candidates aspiring for Post Graduate medical course are completely exempted even from appearing for the Entrance Examination. W.P.(C).No.306 of 2009 :: 6 :: 7. The logic and rationale behind adopting a different yardstick for service quota candidates is apparently rested on the fact that aspirants for admission to service quota will be at a relatively advanced age. 8. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the State has committed any irrationality in providing for a different method of evaluation for service quota candidates. For all these reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// W.P.(C).No.306 of 2009 :: 7 ::