State rights to reserve and manage medical seats for in-service candidates upheld; no infringement of admitted rights as compliance with Supreme Court directions ensures maximum utilization of available seats.

ORDER :

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

With the consent of both the parties, the main writ petition was taken up for final disposal.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to letter dated 03.06.2025 in file number F.No.U12021/02/2025-MEC and quash the same, and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to return the 144 super speciality seats in Tamil Nadu medical colleges belonging to the state quota that was surrendered by the 4^th respondent on 03.06.2025 and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 to hold round two counselling of the state quota seats in accordance with law.

3. Heard Mr.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.Richardson Wilson, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General for Ms.V.Sudha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, Mr.K.Tippu Sultan, learned Government Advocate for the 4^th respondent and Ms.M.Sneha, learned Special Counsel for the respondents 3 and 5.

4. Mr.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Richardson Wilson, would submit that the denial of second round counselling by the 2^nd respondent vide their communication dated 03.06.2025 is in contravention to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr.N.Karthikeyan and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 331. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the State's right to reserve 50% super speciality seats for the in-service candidates, as such, the 2^nd respondent's communication to the 4^th respondent to surrender the unfilled seats before conducting round two State counselling is in contravention to the Apex Court's judgement, and such conduct would infringe upon the rights of these petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel also would contend that the 2^nd respondent is acting with discrimination. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that if the impugned order is permitted to continue, it would run counter to the interest of the State, as the candidates selected through All India Quota would return to their own State, thereby, the citizen of this State would get affected. Hence, prayed to quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2025.

5. Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General assisted by Ms.V.Sudha, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would contend that the impugned order was issued in line with the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and that the All India Quota counselling has already been completed and results were published allotting the 144 seats in question, to the prospective candidates. Therefore, would contend that any interference in the impugned order would cause hindrance to the schedule approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Additional Solicitor General would further submit that the prospectus which relied by the petitioners, has categorically mentioned that the admission would be in line with the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP.(C) No.53 of 2022 and other letters referred to in Clause 24(b) of the prospectus. It is their further submission that, for the sake of these petitioners, who according to the respondents 1 & 2 are fence sitters, the result of All India Quota counselling should not be interfered, as these petitioners were already provided with the opportunity to participate in the first round counselling. Hence, pra