IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13728 of 2008(H)
1. DR.MANOJ KUMAR G.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF EKRALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
3. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :12/06/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 13728 OF 2008
-------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a graduate in medicine which degree was
obtained from the Rostov State Medical University in Russia. He
completed his one year internship in Kerala. He also underwent the
screening test conducted by the Medical Board of Examinations
successfully for students who studied abroad. Consequently his
qualification is accepted as equivalent to MBBS degree issued by the
Kerala University. Pursuant to notification invited by the PSC, the
petitioner applied for the selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon in
the Health Service Department of Kerala. However, he found that his
rank No. is 1880 in Ext.P1 rank list prepared by the PSC which
contained only a total No.1913 candidates. According to the
petitioner, since the ranking is based on the aggregate of marks
obtained in the qualifying examination and the interview, the
petitioner should have found a higher rank in so far as going by
Exts.P1 and P2 petitioner should have secured at least 60% marks in
the qualifying examination which has not been taken into account for
WPC : 13728/08
-:2:-
award of rank. According to the petitioner, those from University in
India who had secured only 50 to 55 % in the qualifying examination
had secured much higher rank than the petitioner. Petitioner
therefore seeks the following reliefs:
“i. to issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order
directing the respondents to call for the records connected with thecase and re-issue the Rank List without excluding any of the marks
secured by the petitioner in his qualifying Degree examination and
assign appropriate position in the Rank List.
ii. to issue a declaration that the petitioner cannot be
discriminated in the matter of selection to the post of Assistant
Surgeon for the reason of his having completed his medical
education from a Russian University and his Rank cannot be
brought down in the Rank List after excluding certain marks
secured by him in his qualifying examination.”
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the PSC in which it is
admitted that the criterion for selection is by adding percentage of
marks secured in the final MBBS (Part I and Part II) to the interview
marks out of 20. According to them, this method has been upheld by
a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.356/08. It is further
submitted that when it was found that mark list of certain candidates
who obtained MBBS degree from the Universities in the erstwhile
USSR and other East European countries are substantially different
WPC : 13728/08
-:3:-
from those awarded by Indian Universities, they approached the
Medical Council of India for standardisation of the marks. A Sub
Committee of the Medical Council of India examined the issue in
detail. Thereafter they recommended that where grades only are
given by foreign Universities, the grading as satisfactory should be
considered as 50% marks, when it is good it should be considered as
55%, and, when it is excellent it should be considered as 60% marks.
The petitioner, as is evident from Ext.P1, has been given grades for
each subject ranging from satisfactory to excellent. Accordingly, the
petitioner’s grade in the subjects for Part I and Part II of final year
MBBS examination were converted into marks as per
recommendations of the Medical Council of India and he has been
included in the rank list on the basis of those marks. According to
the PSC, there is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the
PSC and that was the only way by which ranking could have been
done.
3. The counsel for the petitioner would point out that the very
same University which awarded the degree had in Ext.P2 certificate
opined that the conversion of the grading into marks could be 60 to
69 for satisfactory, 70 to 84 for good and 85 to 100 for excellent.
WPC : 13728/08
-:4:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contends that, the marks
should have been awarded to the petitioner based on that criterion
and not the criterion suggested by the Medical Council of India.
4. I am of opinion that, first of all Ext.P2 is not reliable at all.
No candidate in any of the Universities in Kerala or India would get
even 70% marks for the MBBS degree. In Ext.P2, for excellent, up to
100 marks have been prescribed. Even for satisfactory up to 69% is
prescribed which cannot be taken as a yardstick for conversion of the
grades into marks at all. Even otherwise, Ext.P2 is only an opinion of
that University. Insofar as the Medical Council of India, which is the
ultimate statutory body in the matter of medical education in India,
has after comparing the standards of medical education in USSR and
in India prescribed the particular criterion to convert the grades into
marks. There is nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in the PSC
adopting that criterion. In that view, I do not find any merit in the
contentions of the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
ttb
WPC : 13728/08
-:5:-