JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner, a graduate of the MBBS course from Dr MGR Medical University, Chennai, is a permanent Medical Officer working in the Department of General Medicine, Medical College, Palakkad, which the SC-ST Department, Government of Kerala, directly administers. He is a native of Tamil Nadu and has filed this writ petition challenging the nativity clause 4.2 in Ext.P9 Prospectus, which prevents the petitioner’s participation in the Medical PG admission under the service quota as he is not a native of the State of Kerala.

2. The petitioner submits that, though, under the provisions of Act 29 of 2008, the petitioner is qualified. The relevant clause in the prospectus, viz. 4.2 bars him from applying as his native place is in Tamil Nadu. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court challenging the restrictions in the prospectus, which this Court directed the government to consider in Ext.P5 judgment, pursuant to which Ext.P6 order is passed, which is challenged in this writ petition.

3. The reason given in Ext.P6 is that on account of the provision in the prospectus, which disables persons like the petitioner who are natives of other States, as allowing them would enable those from Tamil Nadu to get admissions in the State of Kerala. If such students are admitted here, the less meritorious Kerala students will not get admission, which, Ext.P6 says, is a “cruelty”. It is also stated that students who get admission in the service quota category/other students of completed MBBS from Institutes like AIIMS from outside Kerala will not perform compulsory service in Kerala, and if nativity condition is relaxed, the objectives of the same will be defeated. It is also stated that the issue of inclusion of the Lecturers in IIMS Palakkad under the service quota for Medical PG Admission for the Academic year 2022-2023 is pending before the Supreme Court.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, which reiterates the contentions stated in the impugned order. It is also stated that Act 29 of 2008 provides for fixing appropriate eligibility conditions, and it is the prospectus that decides the criteria for admission. Since the admissions are made on the terms of the prospectus, which must be treated on par with the Statute, the restrictions placed in that would apply to the petitioner who applied under the terms of the prospectus.

5. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner stating that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the State against Ext.P11 judgment has been dismissed. It is also pointed out that similarly situated Lecturers in the 4th respondent college have secured admission under the service quota for PG Medical courses, and the petitioner is denied admission solely on the grounds of his nativity, which is a clear case of discrimination. Since he is a Medical Officer, going by the Act, he cannot be prevented from appearing in the test under the service quota. However, it is the prospectus that imposes a nativity clause. The petitioner also states that he is domiciled in Kerala and is employed in the State services, and he is prepared to abide by all the conditions the other service quota candidates who get admission have to comply with. The petitioner thus challenges the selection under the service quota insofar as it imposes a nativity clause on the prospective PG aspirant.

6. Heard Sri. Manu Srinath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.G. Pramod, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents and Sri.Suman Chakravarthy for the 4th respondent college.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Manu Srinath cites the judgments reported in Abdul Haleem P.P. vs. State of Kerala and Others in W.A. No. 1423/2021 dated 8.4.2022 D.P. Joshi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1955 SC 334, Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (1984) 3 SCC 654. The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, relies on the judgments in Saurabh Chaud