Admission to the M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course cannot be claimed solely on the basis of merit, as the prospectus clearly outlines the eligibility criteria and the Supreme Court had stayed the order allowing merit-based admissions.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the prospectus of the academic year 2009-2010, issued by the first respondent for the Post Graduate Diploma/Degree/M.D.S/Five Year M.Ch. (Neuro-Surgery) Courses, in so far as it disallows the petitioner to change his specialty already chosen by him during the first round of counseling and to direct the first respondent to conduct fresh counseling for the four seats in M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery, on merit basis.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner is a Doctor holding M.B.B.S. Degree. He was appointed as an Assistant Surgeon in the Directorates of the second respondent, from the year, 2006, after passing the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission entrance examinations. Therefore, the petitioner is qualified to be considered as a `service candidate for the purpose of admission to P.G. Seats in Government Medical Colleges. In the first round of counseling, which had commenced, on 4. 2009, only two seats had been allotted for the M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. Further, both these seats were allotted to the candidates based on community reservation. Accordingly, one seat had been allotted to Most Backward Class private candidate and the other seat had been allotted to Most Backward Class service candidate. Even though the petitioner has the necessary qualifications and the merit, he was not selected for M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that only two seats has been released/sanctioned by the respondents, initially, for the M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. The petitioner had not been selected for the said course even though he has sufficient merit, only due to the reason the respondents had adhered to community reservation, contrary to the ruling of a Division Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 20.5.2009, wherein it was held that M.Ch Neuro-Surgery course is a super speciality course and therefore, the admission to the said course had to be based only on merit, without following community reservation.

5. Further, it has been stated that the respondents had released two more seats during the second counseling, said to be from the All India Quota, even though the medical seats offered by the second respondent to All India Quota does not contain M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery. Since the petitioner had not been called for the second counseling he has lost the opportunity to get the course of his choice, namely, M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the Supreme Court, by its order,dated 16. 2009, made in Appeal (Civil) No(s).14014-14015 of 2009, had stayed the order of the Division Bench, of this Court, dated 15. 2009, made in W.A.No.763 of 2007 and W.A.No.764 of 2007. Therefore, it was open to the respondents to follow the community reservation for admission to M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. Further, M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course cannot be treated as a super specialty course. It has also been stated that second counseling had been held for the two additional seats in M.Ch. Neuro-surgery course released from the All India Quota. Since the petitioner had already been selected in M.S.Opthalmology in Tirunelveli Medical College, he was not eligible to participate in the second counseling held for the two additional seats of M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course. Further, the counseling for the M.Ch. Neuro-Surgery course had already been held, on 16. 2009. In such circumstances, the relief’s sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits. As the writ petition is devoid of merits, it is liable to be dismissed.

7. In