IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16764 of 2009(M)
1. DR. SUDIN S.R,NAVANEETHAM, H. NO. 163,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
3. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
4. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY
5. MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN
For Respondent :SRI.ALEXANDER THOMAS, SC, MCI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :16/06/2010
O R D E R
K.T. SANKARAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P(C).No.16764 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Connected Writ Petitions, namely, W.P(C) No.15465 of 2009
and connected cases, were disposed of by the judgment dated
25/06/2009. For the sake of convenience, the judgment is
extracted below:
“The challenge in these writ petitions relates to the
validity of sub clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of Clause III (a) of the
prospectus issued by the Directorate of Medical Education for
Post Graduate Super Specialty Courses, Kerala, 2009. Though
counter affidavit is filed by the Government, supporting some of
the clauses, Government then reconsidered the matter.
Senior Government Pleader, Mr.T.B.Hood, submits that the
Government has decided to delete the aforementioned clauses,
namely sub clauses (iii), (iv) and (v) of clause III(a) of the said
prospectus. Submission is recorded.
2. Accordingly, the aforementioned clauses shall
stand deleted from the prospectus and the consequential
notification. All the petitioners in these writ petitions shall be
permitted to appear in the Common Entrance Examination for
Post Graduate Super Specialty Courses, Kerala, 2009. Their
applications shall be treated as regular, and shall be
considered in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).
16009/2009, submits that the writ petition also contains a
challenge against the validity of Act 29 of 2008. He prays that
W.P(C). No.16764/2009
2
the said challenge may be left open to be prosecuted by the
petitioner, if so advised at a later point of time. Said prayer is
left open.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.”
2. In view of the judgment dated 25/6/2009, this Writ
Petition is disposed of in the same manner in which those cases
were disposed of.
3. Sri. B. Raghunathan, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has got admission for
M.Ch and that he is continuing his studies. This submission is
recorded.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE
scm
