Cyriac Joseph, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment dated 30.10.2003 in Writ Petition (c) No.29639/2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition and the respondents are the respondents in the writ petition.

2. The dispute in this case relates to selection of candidates for admission of Post Graduate Medical Courses. As per Clause X of the Prospectus for Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses 2003 issued by the Directorate of Medical Education, Kerala, seats are reserved for Service candidates in four quotas, viz., (1) Lectures (2) Assistant Surgeons, (3) Medical Officers in Municipal Service. (4) Medical Officers in Insurance Medical Service. There are 3 categories under the quota for Assistant Surgeons. They are (a) Health Services Quota (b) Leprosy Service Quota, and (c) Tuberculosis Service quota. As per Clause X (j)(v) of the prospectus a seat each in M.D. TBRD and DTCD will be reserved for doctors working in District Tuberculosis Centres/Tuberculosis Treatment units of Health Services. A minimum of two years of service may be fixed as eligibility to apply under this quota. As per clause x(b)(ii) of the prospectus, for candidates under service quota total service will be reckoned as on the last date of submission of application. Unauthorised absence or absence due to Leave without Allowance will not be counted for the purpose of calculating the seniority. As per Ext.P7 notification dated 10.9.2002 issued by the Director of Medical Education, the last date for submission of applications for selection to the Service quota was fixed as 15.10.2002. However by Ext.P6 Govt. Order dated 29.10.2002 Clause X(j)(v) of the prospectus was modified as follows:

“A seat each in HD TBRD and DTCD will be reserved for doctors working in State TB Cell Unit/District Tuberculosis Centres/Tuberculosis treatment Unit of Health Services.”

Thus as per the unamended prospectus only the service in the District Tuberculosis Centres/Tuberculosis treatment unit of Health Services was taken into account for the purpose of selection to Tuberculosis quota. But as per Ext.P6 amendment, service in the State TB Cell Unit also could be taken into account.

3. The appellant Dr.K.Varghese Philip and the fourth respondent Dr.Lalitha Geena Dalus had submitted applications for admission to the P.G. Courses 2003 in the Tuberculosis quota. In Ext.P3 final seniority list of candidates who applied for P.G. Course under Tuberculoses Quota- 2003, the fourth respondent was given rank No.1 and the appellant was given rank No.2. The qualifying service of the fourth respondent was shown as 5 years, on month and 13 days. The qualifying service of the appellant was shown as four years, 8 months and 14 days. It is admitted that the qualifying service of the 4th respondent was determined as 5 years, one month and thirteen days by taking into account the service rendered by her in State T.B. Cell Unit. It is not disputed that if the service rendered by the fourth respondent in the State T.B. Cell Unit is not taken into account, she will have only less qualifying service than the appellant and that the appellant will be entitled to be ranked above the fourth respondent in the final seniority list.

4. Aggrieved by the amendment of the prospectus as per Ext.P6 Government Order and the rank given to the appellant and the fourth respondent in Ext.P3 final seniority list of candidates who applied for P.G. Course under the Tuberculosis Quota, the appellant filed the writ petition praying for quashing Exts.P3 and P6 and for a direction to the second respondent to select the petitioner/appellant for P.G. Course 2003 in preference to the fourth respondent. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties dismissed the writ petition holding that the Government was competent to amend the prospectus and that Ext.P3 final seniority list was not vitiated by any illegality. Aggrieved by the