IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1678 of 2010(H)
1. DR. SHASHIKUMAR PILLAI, S/O. LATE
... Petitioner
2. DR.KARUNAN KANNAPOYILIL, S/O. CHATHU,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
3. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
4. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :05/04/2010
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).Nos.1678, 2016, 2407,
3551 & 3609 OF 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010
JUDGMENT
1.These writ petitions are filed by in-service doctors holding
M.B.B.S. Degree and aspiring to join Post Graduation.
2.On the basis of the public requirement to provide higher
education for in-service candidates, the Government
earmarked certain quota as in-service quota for PG medical
education. Then, the question arose as to whether those
candidates have to appear for or succeed in the entrance
examination. There was a legislation placed making such
reservation. It was held that they need not undergo the
entrance examination.
3.When the aforesaid reservation and age relaxation was
subjected to challenge in W.P(C).2724/09, this Court held that
WPC.1678/10 & con cases.
2
the age relaxation was sustainable. However, the Government
were directed to consider whether such situation should
prevail for all times to come. The Government thereupon took
the view that the provision so made need not continue. This
decision came through the Prospectus Committee, affirmed by
the Government. This is under challenge.
4.The question whether the Prospectus Committee acted within
jurisdiction or not is not a matter in issue. The wisdom of the
Government and the Prospectus Committee in providing a
particular classification among candidates on need basis and
earmarking certain quota of seats for a particular category do
not amount to a communal reservation. The policy in that
regard is something that could be reviewed by the Government
even every year, having regard to the facts and circumstances.
The policy, unless shown to be totally irrational, would not be
touched by the visitorial jurisdiction of this Court in judicial
review.
WPC.1678/10 & con cases.
3
5.Faced with the aforesaid situation, it is pointed out that the
petitioners are those who would have got the benefit of the
earmarking of seats for those above 47 years of age and that,
on ground realities, time has not come to recall the proposal
for providing service quota benefits to such persons. Under
such circumstances, the petitioners confine their request to be
one for a direction to the Government and the Prospectus
Committee to provide an opportunity of hearing to them and to
re-consider whether the provision for such service quota
should be permitted to be available to get over the inequalities
that may otherwise survive in the light of the earmarking of
the quota.
Taking the aforesaid submission into considerations, these writ
petitions are ordered directing that the Government will
provide the petitioners an opportunity of hearing in relation to
the aforesaid matter. Let this be done within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.05/04.