IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1274 of 2008()
1. DR. RAJI.K.L
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR, MEDICAL EDUCATION,TRIVANDRUM
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :20/06/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1274 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 20th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
The appellant herein was the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.17683/2008. In the writ petition filed, the petitioner/appellant had
called in question the selection of the 5th respondent for Post Graduate
Studies under the service quota. According to the appellant, the 5th
respondent is ineligible to get selection to the said course. It is further
stated that the appellant is senior to the 5th respondent and ignoring her
claim, respondents 1 to 3 should not have granted admission to the 5th
respondent to prosecute her studies in Post Graduate Course.
2. In the writ petition, it is stated that the
petitioner/appellant has approached the first respondent, namely the
Director, Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram and also the Director
of Insurance Medical Services, Thiruvananthapuram to cancel the
admission given to the 5th respondent and then select the appellant to
prosecute the Post Graduate Course in M.D. (Radio Diagnosis).
3. In our view, the petition filed by the petitioner is wholly
premature and on that short ground the learned Single Judge could have
rejected the writ petition.
4. In the writ petition as well as in the writ appeal the
WA.No.1274/2008 -2-
petitioner/appellant alleges that by playing fraud on the authorities the
5th respondent has secured admission in the Post Graduate Studies and it
is further stated that though this was brought to the notice of respondent
authorities by filing representation dated 10-6-2008, nothing has been
done by them. In our view, it was expected of the authorities to have
considered that representation and should have passed appropriate
orders. Since that has not been done, appropriate direction requires to be
issued.
5. Accordingly, while disposing of this writ appeal, we
direct the Director of Medical Education, Thiruvananthapuram and the
Director, Insurance Medical Services, Thiruvananthapuram to consider
the representation filed by the petitioner/appellant in accordance with
law, after due notice to the petitioner/appellant and the 5th respondent.
All the contentions of the parties are left open.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS/dk.