A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.20823 of 2013 is the appellant before us. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows;

The appellant is a candidate who appeared at the pre-medical entrance examination conducted by the 3rd respondent institute for admission to the MBBS course for the academic year 2013-14. The 3rd respondent institute is situated in Maharashtra. In the prospectus published by the 3rd respondent institute, produced as Ext.P1 in the writ petition, it is mentioned that in addition to the seats reserved for candidates from the general category and categories eligible for reservation in terms of the Constitution of India, there are four seats, referred to as the central pool seats, reserved for nominees of the Government of India. The nomination is to be made by the Government of India pursuant to a selection conducted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, from among eligible applicants. The categories of persons eligible to apply for nomination to the said seats, and the manner in which the applications for the same are to be preferred, are spelt out in Ext.P1 prospectus.

2. The appellant, who appeared at the entrance examination conducted by the 3rd respondent institute and was declared as passed in the said examination, preferred an application for nomination to the central pool seats before the 1st and 2nd respondents who are officials in the designated Ministry of the Government of India. The appellant staked his claim for nomination under the category “Ward of defence personnel” as his father is serving as a Command Aviation Officer 11 in the Indian Navy. While the application preferred by the appellant yielded no response from the 1st and 2nd respondents, he was also informed that the respondents were proposing to finalise a select list by adopting criteria that were contrary to those specified in Ext.P1 prospectus. This led the appellant to prefer the writ petition seeking a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to finalise the select list of nominees to the central pool seats in accordance with Ext.P1 prospectus.

3. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned single judge on the issue of maintainability. The relevant portion of the judgment of the learned single judge reads as follows:

“Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail as also the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. After going through the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the petitioner, if at all aggrieved as to the course and proceeding, has necessarily to approach the concerned Court having jurisdiction over the third respondent. Territorial jurisdiction of this Court does not extend to grant any relief to the petitioner in this case. The writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for appropriate relief.”

It is the above judgment that is impugned in this writ appeal.

4. We have heard Adv. Sri. P.C. Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Adv. Sri. P. Sanjay, Learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents. Counsel for the appellant would contend that insofar as the relief prayed for in the writ petition was for a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to finalise the select list of nominees to the central pool seats in the 3rd respondent institute, the Kerala High Court would have territorial jurisdiction in the matter of entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He would, in particular, refer to the provisions of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution to contend that insofar as the direction sought for in the writ petition was to the 1st and 2nd respondents, who represent the Central Government, the writ petition could be maintained before the High Court in Kerala which had jurisdiction over Tellicherry, the pla