High Court Kerala High Court

Dr.T.A.Habeeb vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Dr.T.A.Habeeb vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 28468 of 2010(G)



1. DR.T.A.HABEEB
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SMT.S.KARTHIKA

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/09/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 28468 OF 2010 (G)
                =====================

         Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner entered Health Services Department in the year

1997. He applied for admission to the Super Speciality Course,

the prospectus of which is Ext.P1. There are only seven seats

available in the Health Services quota and post graduates with

five years experience below 47 years alone are eligible. Ext.P2 is

the ranked list, where the petitioner is at Sl.No.17 and he is the

first in the waiting list. According to the petitioner, he will be

attaining the age of 47 years in the next year and therefore this is

the last chance when the petitioner can aspire for admission to

Super Speciality Course.

2. Essentially distribution of seats for different disciplines

for admission to Super Speciality Courses is a matter of policy of

the Government and scope of interference in such a case in a

proceedings under Article 226 is very limited. Therefore, it is a

matter for the Government to consider whether to redistribute the

seats or to explore the possibility of increasing the seats. It is

seen that the petitioner has moved the Government by filing

WPC No. 28468/10
:2 :

Exts.P5 and P6.

3. Having regard to the pendency of the said

representations, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the same

in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed anything on the

merits and it is open to the Government to decide the issue.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp