IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7925 of 2009(I)
1. MATHEW JAMES, S/O.JACOB MATHEW,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY
3. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
4. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/04/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 7925 of 2009
------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is an applicant for admission to Post Graduate
Course in Dental Surgery (MDS), and his preferred subject is
Orthodontics. According to Exhibit P1 prospectus, there are three
seats in Thiruvananthapuram Medical College and two seats in
Calicut, out of which, one seat each are for All India Quota. The
prospectus also shows that one seat in the subject from the state
quota has been reduced as per direction of the DGHS, due to
regularization of an excess admission during the year 2006-2007.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has
already made Exhibit P4 recommendation to the second
respondent requesting to get sanction of the first respondent not
to reduce one seat in the specialty of Orthodontics from the State
quota this year. However, from the submission made by the
learned Government Pleader, it is evident that the Government
has not so far taken any action in this behalf and it is at that
stage allotment is going to take place. Hence, this writ petition is
W.P.(C) No. 7925 /2009
2
filed.
3. It would appear that in the year 2006-07 one excess
admission was granted in the state quota and that was
regularized by the first respondent by Exhibit P2 order, on
condition that corresponding reduction will be made in the
subsequent year. However, that was again postponed to this
year and it was therefore that the DGHS has directed that one
seat in the state quota in the subject Orthodontics should be
reduced this year. It would appear from Exhibit P4, that in
2006-2007 itself, one seat in the state quota in the specialty of
Conservative Dentistry was kept vacant and it is on that basis
the 3rd respondent has recommended that the matter be taken
up with the first respondent and the seat in Orthodontics be
restored.
4. In the light of the recommendation made by the 3rd
respondent as above, it is only appropriate that the second
respondent should make an attempt to get the seat restored
as otherwise, for no valid reason, a seat will be permanently
lost for the year. In view of the above, I direct the second
W.P.(C) No. 7925 /2009
3
respondent to take up the matter with the first respondent as
recommended in Exhibit P4, and it is directed that on the
receipt of such recommendation, the first respondent shall
consider the matter and decide whether the seat can be
restored, within eight weeks of its receipt and pass orders
thereon.
5. It is pointed out by the petitioner and confirmed by
the learned Government pleader appearing for respondents 2
and 3 that in terms of time frame fixed, the first allotment is to
commence and complete before 15th April,2009 and classes are
to be commence from 31st May, 2009 onwards.
6. Taking note of the time frame so fixed, it is directed
that subject to decision of the Government of India in the
matter of restoring the one seat and entirely at the risk of the
candidate concerned, it will be open to respondents 2,3 and 4
to allot an eligible candidate to the subject Orthodontics (MDS).
It is made clear that this is purely provisional and the candidate
admitted will be informed that if the Government of India
decides not accept the recommendation to restore the seat, the
W.P.(C) No. 7925 /2009
4
candidate will have to vacate seat without any demur and that
no equity whatsoever can be claimed.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
scm