Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3651
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
Dr. A.C. Senthil Kumar
Versus
Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk
W.P.No.18019 of 2008 and M.P.Nos.1 and 3 of 2008
Decided on : 30-09-2008
For the Petitioner:Yashodvardhan Senior Counsel for K. Chandrasekaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R1, 2 & 4, Dakshyani Reddy, R5, T.P. Prabakaran, Advocates.
At the level of super specialization, there cannot be any reservation, as any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national interest. Merit alone should be the basis of selection at the level of admission to super speciality courses.
Headnote:
Reservation - Higher Speciality Course - Endocrine Surgery - [Clause 60(a) of Higher Speciality Prospectus 2008-2009] - The court discussed the application of Clause 60(a) of the Higher Speciality Prospectus, which reserved 50% of seats for service candidates and stipulated that in case of an odd number seat remaining vacant, that seat shall be filled from the service candidates. The court emphasized the principle that at the level of super specialization, there cannot be any reservation, as any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national interest. The court also highlighted the importance of promoting excellence at the highest level and providing the best talent in the country with the maximum available facilities to excel and contribute to society. The judgment emphasized that at the super speciality level, reservations of the kind known as 'protective discrimination' in favor of those considered to be backward should be avoided as being not permissible. The court concluded that merit alone should be the basis of selection at the level of admission to super speciality courses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the allocation of a single seat in the Higher Speciality Course - Endocrine Surgery exclusively to in-service candidates. The petitioner, who was placed at No.1 with 73 total marks, was not called for counseling, and the seat was allotted to the 5th Respondent, who had 70.25 marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reservation of the single seat for service candidates in the Endocrine Surgery discipline was not in accordance with the law and the well-settled legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The court held that the denial of admission to the petitioner, who was placed at No.1, was arbitrary and against the well-settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The court set aside the allotment of the seat to the 5th Respondent and directed the authorities to admit the petitioner in M.Ch. Endocrine Surgery for the year 2008-2009.
Issues: The issues involved the reservation of a single seat in the Endocrine Surgery discipline for service candidates and the denial of admission to the petitioner, who was placed at No.1 with 73 total marks.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the level of super specialization, there cannot be any reservation, as any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national interest. The judgment highlighted the importance of promoting excellence at the highest level and providing the best talent in the country with the maximum available facilities to excel and contribute to society. The court concluded that merit alone should be the basis of selection at the level of admission to super speciality courses.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, and the allotment of the seat to the 5th Respondent in the Endocrine Surgery discipline was set aside. The authorities were directed to admit the petitioner in M.Ch. Endocrine Surgery for the year 2008-2009.
Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the allocation of one and only seat in the Higher Speciality Course – Endocrine Surgery exclusively to in-service candidates. Petitioner is aggrieved against the selection of 5th Respondent for M.Ch. Endocrine Surgery for the academic year 2008-2009.
2. In nutshell, case of the Petitioner is as follows:-
(i) Petitioner possessed P.G. (M.S) Degree in General Surgery. He has applied for 3 years Super Speciality Courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges. As the candidate is eligible to give two options, Petitioner applied for M.Ch. Courses in surgical Oncology as first option and Endocrine Surgery as second option. In M.Ch. Endocrine Surgery, there is only one seat available in Tamil Nadu i.e. in Madras Medical College. As per the open merit list put up for Endocrine Surgery, Petitioners name was placed at No.1 with 73 total marks followed by Amudhan (service candidate) with 71.25 marks and 5th Respondent - Zahir Hussain (service) with 69.25 marks. List for counselling was put up for M.Ch. Courses in Endocrine Surgery contained only the names of service candidates and did not contain the name of the Petitioner. Petitioner filed Writ of Mandamus to permit him to attend the counselling to be held on 27. 2008.
.3. In the counselling held on 27. 2008, Amudhan with 72.25 marks which is lower than 73 marks of the Petitioner was selected. Since, Amudhan did not want to join, another counselling was scheduled. By interim order, Court has permitted the Petitioner to participate in the counselling. Petitioner attended the same on 20.8.2008. However, the seat has been allotted to 5th Respondent whose service merit mark is 70.25.
4. Petitioner has amended the prayer in the Writ Petition seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the selection of the 5th Respondent and to direct the Respondents 1,2 and 4 to admit the Petitioner into M.Ch. Courses – Endocrine Surgery. Petitioner has challenged the selection on the ground that Petitioner is more meritorious than any other candidates and the Petitioner ought to have been called for counselling and ought to have been selected on the basis of merit.
5. Respondents 1,2 and 4 resisted the Petition by filing common counter-affidavit. The stand of the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 is that as per Clause 60(a) of Higher Speciality Prospectus 2008-2009, 50% of seats in each discipline and in each College are reserved for service candidates and in case of an odd number seat remaining vacant that seat shall be filled from the service candidates. According to the Respondents 1,2 and 4, only one seat available in the Speciality Endocrine Surgery was allotted to service candidate as the seat was being odd number seat allotted for service category.
6. Fifth Respondent has also filed counter stating that in case of odd number seat remaining vacant that seat shall be filled from service candidates and the single seat was rightly filled by service candidate.
7. Placing reliance upon number of decisions, Mr. Yashodvardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the only seat in M.Ch. Course – Endocrine Surgery cannot be the subject matter of reservation for any one category but has to be kept open. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Supreme Court has consistently laid that at the level of super specialization there cannot be any reservation because any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national interest and therefore, the only one seat is required to be kept as open competition. It was further urged that Petitioner with highest marks is thus entitled to be admitted and the selection of 5th Respondent is contrary to the Prospectus and also the consistent principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
.8. Ms. Dakshyani Reddy, learned Spl. Government Pleader (Education) has submitted that Clause 60 (a) in the Prospectus squarely applies to the case and one is odd number and that seat shall
