O R D E R

The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 12.12.2022 made in W.P.No.32398 of 2022. The prayer in the said Writ Petition reads as follows:-

“directing the 5th respondent to accept the resignation letter of the petitioner sent in E-mail dated 26.11.2022 and further letter dated 28.11.2022 and release the petitioner's educational certificates, without imposing penalty and further direction to the respondents not to restrict the petitioner from participating in the counselling for the future sessions, in case of the petitioner qualifies.”

2.This prayer was opposed by the respondents in the Writ Petition on the basis that the prospectus will govern the issue and it is binding on the parties. It is also pointed out that the prospectus provides for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- and a ban on the petitioner for two years in seeking a seat in the State under All India Quota if he exits mid stream. Both these conditions have been incorporated keeping in view the cost of providing medical education and the amount that would be lost by the State, if the seat goes vacant.

3.Mr.A.E.Ravichandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would however, point out that there was an extended counselling for All India Quota and the seat, which was vacated by the petitioner was filled up in the extended counselling and therefore there is no loss to the State. In view of the peculiar position that the seat had been filled up in the extended counselling, I am of the opinion that the petitioner would not incur the disqualification and the penalty.

4.Ms.Sneha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent Selection Committee would however, submit that in view of the prospectus, the review applicant would have to suffer both the conditions namely, two years of ban and payment of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Court cannot blindly go by the prospectus. The Court has to see the intention behind the prospectus and implement the conditions in the prospectus in order to advance the intention and not in derogation of it. The intention behind the two conditions that are imposed is to prevent students from exiting mid stream, so that the seat is not kept vacant for the remaining period of course thereby, causing financial loss to the State.

5.Now that the seat itself has been filled up in the extended counselling, the State will not incur any loss because of the petitioner vacating the seat mid stream. I am therefore, unable to countenance the submission of the learned Standing Counsel.

6.No doubt, if the extended counselling had not happened, I would not have entertained the review but, in view of the fact that the extended counselling has happened and the petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person has achieved an unsurmountable task of getting a seat in a Post Graduate course in one of the primary medical institutions in the country namely, the Madras Medical College, I think, he deserves a better treatment. Hence, this Review Application is allowed. The disqualification incurred by the petitioner will not be held against him, since the seat has now been filled up. Liberty given to recover Rs.15,00,000/- will also stand set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

02.02.2023 kkn Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To:-

1.The Secretary to Government of India, Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi.

2.The National Medical Commission, Pocket 14, Sector 8, Dwaraka Phase-1, New Delhi – 110077.

3.The Director General of Health Services, Medical Counselling Committee, Ministry of Health a Family Welfare, Govt. Of India, New Delhi – 110108.

4.The Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai – 600009.

5.The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. 6.The Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600010.

7.The Dean, Madras Medical College, Chennai – 600003.

R.SUBRAMANIAN,