The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the prospectus clauses outlining the method of selection, determination of interse merit, and reservation of seats for service and non-service candidates.

Pursuant to a Notification issued by the Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, for admission to three year Higher Speciality Courses in Tamilnadu Government Medical Colleges, for the academic year 2009-2010, the petitioner has applied for admission to Higher Speciality Course and he opted for D.M.(Medical Gastro Enterology) course, under open category. Eight seats are notified for the said course. 50% of the seats are reserved for in service candidates and 50% of the seats are earmarked for open category candidates.

2. According to the petitioner, four seats are earmarked for non-service candidates. An interview was held on 12.08.2009, and four candidates were selected under non-service category, and four in service candidates were selected from the overall merit list. As per the order of merit, the petitioner was placed at serial No.7 in the overall ranking, and at Serial No.5 under non-service category. As the petitioner was placed at serial No.7 in the open merit list, he should have been placed at Serial No.1 in the waiting list. However, during the interview, instead of calling the wait listed candidates from the respective categories, 2 candidates from service category namely, Dr.Malarvizhi, placed at rank No.14 and Dr.Valavan placed at rank No.16 were called as wait listed candidates.

3. According to the petitioner, as per the prospectus, the petitioner ought to have been called for the interview from the wait listed category, in the event of any one of the non-service category candidates failing to join the course and that the seat meant for non-service category candidate should be filled up only from the wait list candidate of non-service category. Since the procedure adopted by the respondents in ignoring the merit and calling a service candidate, who has secured marks lesser than the petitioner for interview was contrary to the prospectus the petitioner was constrained to file W.P.No.16624 of 2009 for a Mandamus directing the respondents therein, to keep the petitioner as wait listed candidate No.1, in the order of merit for selection to the course in DM Medical Gastro Enterology, under the non-service category, for the year 20092010 and consequently, admit the petitioner to the said course, in the event of any seat falling vacant, under the non-service category for the year 2009-2010.

4. The petitioner has further submitted that on instructions from the Secretary, Selection Committee, Chennai, the Learned Government Advocate, has submitted that in the event of any one of the four persons selected under non-service category, not joining the course the petitioner would be considered for the said course and that place will not be filled up from service candidate. The petitioner has further submitted that on the basis of the submissions of the Learned Government Advocate the Writ petition was disposed of.

5. One of the candidates in open category a non-service candidate Dr.Rajarajan Serial SNo.2 in the open merit list did not join the course. As apprehended by the petitioner the respondent conducted the second phase of Counselling for the above course and intimated that the resultant vacancy in the open category (non-service) would be given to a service candidate. The Counselling was scheduled on 17.09.2009 at 2 P.M. In these circumstances the petitioner has come forward with the present Writ petition for a Mandamus forbearing the respondents from in any manner filling up of the vacancy caused in open category for the course DM Medical Gastro Enterology, higher speciality selection for the year 2009-2010 by allotting to a service candidate and consequently prayed for a direction to the respondent to allot and admit the petitioner to the course DM Medical Gastro Enterology for the year2009-2010, as per the order in W.P.No.16624 of 2009 dated 18.08.2009.

6. The Additional Director of Medical Education and Secretary/Selection committee, Chennai, in his counter affidavit, has contended that the