The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amendment to the prospectus changing the conditions of admission retrospectively was improper and violated Art.14. The Court also established that reservation in super speciality courses was not permissible and that the selection based on seniority of service among teachers was illegal. The Court further established that the Government Order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and suffered from infirmities.

Shanmugam J.

Both the Original Petition are filed challenging the Government Order (Ext. P2 in O.P. No. 4532/96 & Ext. O. P. No. 4584/96) amending the prospectus for admission to the Post Graduate Course in super speciality, 1995.

2. The Director of Medical Education, Government of Kerala, issued a notification on 13.11.1995 for the admission to Post Graduate Course in super speciality in the Medical Colleges in Kerala. The prospectus for the said course was also issued in November 1995. As per this prospectus there are 10 courses with 39 seats in the three Medical Colleges of the State. The eligibility for admission is that the candidates should have passed MBBS and appropriate Post Graduate Degree (M.D./M.S.). The method of selection is by an entrance examination consisting of two parts each containing objective type questions. In pursuance to this prospectus applications were invited and entrance examinations were held on 13th and 14th January 1996. The petitioners as well as members of the 3rd respondent association applied and appeared for the entrance examination. The result of the examination was published on 25.1,1996. The petitioners in both these O. Ps. were in the select list for D. M. Nephrology and M. Ch. Genito Urinary Surgery respectively. While the petitioners were a waiting to join the course, the Government passed the impugned order amending the prospectus in exercise of the power 'conferred on them under Cl. XII of the prospectus issued earlier. As per this amended prospectus, Government reserved certain seats for Lectures/Asst. Professors in the concerned specialities for which selection would be made on the basis of seniority in service. The said Government order is now under challenge.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners M/s. C. S. Rajan and K.R.B. Kaimal submitted that the rights of a petitioners have accrued by virtue of the selection to the course and the same cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment The members of the 3rd respondent have applied and appeared for written test and failed in the selection and after the selection having been finalised they are not entitled to seek fors a reversal of the Government order to re-open the selection. The selection has to be based on the conditions stipulated in the notification and in the prospectus, which cannot be altered after selection process having completed, restrospectively. The Government having taken up a clear stand to the effect that they are bound by the Supreme Court judgments in reference to super speciality cannot go back in disobedience to the decision of the Supreme Court and their earlier stand. The Government, according to them, have passed an order behind their back without affording an opportunity to the petitioners and total disregard and violation of the principles of natural justice. They also submit that there is no right in favour of the 3rd respondent to seek for a reservation.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submits that the government has followed the decision of this Court in O.P. No. 4465 of 1991 which interpreted the Supreme Court decision to the effect that reservation in super speciality is not barred. According to him, unless reservation is made in favour of the Tutors/Asst. Petitioners, the public interest would suffer. Learned counsel took me through the decision in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 1420) at length and also the decision in O.P. No. 4465 of 1991 and submits that what the Government has done is only the implementation of the directions issued in O.P. No. 4465 of 1991. He submitted that learned single judge in O.P. No. 4465/91 and Division Bench in W.A. No. 279 of 1996 have directed the Government to dispose of the 3rd respondent's representation. The Government is entitled to consider and pass appropriate orders and they have got power to amend and modify the prospectus retrospectively. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter.

5. Learne