Balakrishnan, J.

These writ appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P.Nos. 4584, 4532 & 1430 of 1996. The matter relates to the admission to super speciality courses in Medical Colleges in the State. The learned Single Judge held that ear-making of seats for Tutors/Asst. Professors in the various super speciality courses is violative of law laid down in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India and other similar cases (1984 (3) SCC 654; AIR 1984 SC 420). The order passed by the Government reserving seats for Tutors/ Asst. Professors for super speciality courses was struck down by the impugned judgment and hence these Writ Appeals.

2. The Directorate of Medical Education issued prospectus for admission to nine super speciality courses in February 1994. In this prospectus, it was specified that applicants who had undergone M.B.B.S. and appropriate Post Graduate Degree of the University of Kerala or any other University recognised by University of Kerala were eligible to apply for admission to the courses. Admission to these courses was regulated by an entrance examination. In previous years, one seat each was reserved for Lecturer/ Asst. Professors except for D.M. Gastroenterology, D,M. Neurology and D.M. Nephrology but in 1995 prospectus for admission to these courses, no reservation of seats was provided for Lecturers/Asst. Professors. 2(a). Appellant - association in W.A.No. 646/96 challenged the discontinuance of reservation given to Lecturers/Asst. Professors for super speciality courses in 1995 prospectus by filing O.P. 1430/96. Petitioner had also submitted a representation before the Government to extent the benefit of reservation. The learned Single Judge before whom O.P. No. 1430/96 came up for consideration directed the Government to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders. Government passed an order amending the prospectus issued in 1995. That is produced as Ext. P2 in O.P.No. 4532/96. By that order Government directed to continue the reservation of one seat in each speciality of super speciality courses, 1995 in favour of the Tutors/ Asst. Professors under the Medical Education Services. Thus, for the ten super speciality courses one seat each was reserved for Tutors/Asst. Professors. Petitioners in that O.P. challenged Ext. P2 order passed by the Government mainly on the ground that it was against the dicta laid down in Pradeep Jain's case (supra). There was an earlier decision by the learned Single Judge of this Court in O.P. No. 4465/91 to the effect that reservation in favour of Tutors/ Asst. Professors was perfectly legal and was not against the mandate laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain's case (supra).

3. Learned Single Judge quashed Ext. P2 Government order (in O.P. 4532/96) and held that Government had no authority to amend the prospectus and that the decision to reserve seats in favour of Tutors/Asst. Professors was opposed to the directions contained in Pradeep Jain's case(supra). Incidentally the learned single judge also observed that decision rendered in O.P.No. 4465/91 is 'per incurium'. The correctness of the finding of the learned single judge is sought to be challenged in W.A. Nos. 644 and 645 of 1996.

4. W.A. No. 646/96 is against the judgment in O.P. No. 1430/96. It was in this O.P., there was an interim direction to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners. This O.P. when came up for hearing, the petitioner's counsel submitted that O.P. had become infructuous. Then the learned single judge quashed the interim order passed earlier and directed that original petition would stand dismissed. That finding is challenged in W.A. No. 646/96.

5. We heard the senior counsel for the appellant Sri. P. Sukumaran Nair in W.A. No. 646/96, Sri. C.P. Sudhakara Prasad - counsel for the appellant in W.A.Nos. 644 & 645/96, respondents' counsel Sri. K.R.B. Kaimal and Sri. Ajaya Kumar and the Government Pleader Sri. Lai George.

6. In o