{"id":203629,"date":"2003-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003"},"modified":"2014-11-08T15:45:06","modified_gmt":"2014-11-08T10:15:06","slug":"dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003","title":{"rendered":"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 29\/09\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN\n\nW.P.No.11266 of 2003\nand W.P.Nos. 11845, 13146, 14986, 15243, 15257, 19796,\n19839 and 20423 of 2003\nand\nW.P.M.P.Nos.14137, 14868, 16501, 25655, 18763, 19134, 19153, 24755,\n24801 and 25466 of 2003\n\n\nW.P.No.11266 of 2003:\n\nDr.K.P.Manimaran               ...      Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n   rep. by its Secretary to Govt.,\n   Health and Family Welfare Dept.,\n   Fort St.George,\n   Chennai-9.\n\n2. The Director of Medical Education,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai.\n\n3. The Secretary,\n   Postgraduate Degree\/Diploma Selection\n   Committee, Director of Medical Education,\n   162, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,\n   Kilpauk, Chennai-10.                 ...     Respondents\n\n\n                Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the  Constitution  of\nIndia for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner:         Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy,\n                Sr.counsel for Mr.U.M.Ravichandran\n                in W.P.No.15257 of 2003\n\nMr.V.K.Muthuswamy, Sr.counsel for Mr.R.Santhanam in\n                                        W.P.No.11266 of 2003\n\nMr.K.M.Vijayan, Sr.counsel for M\/s.La Law for petr.  in\n                                W.P.No.20423 of 2003\n\n\nMr.U.M.Ravichandran in W.P.Nos.11845\/2003, 13146\/2003\n                                        14986 of 2003, 15243 of 2003\n                                        and 19839 of 2003\n\n\nMr.K.Raja in W.P.No.19796 of 2003\n\n\nFor respondents:  Mr.V.R.Rajasekaran, Spl.G.P.(Edn.)\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                I  am  of  the  view  that it will be appropriate to begin the
\njudgment with the following observation made by R.C.Lahoti,J.  in STATE OF  M.
\nP.  v.  GOPAL D.  TIRTHANI<\/a> (2003) 9 ILD 13 (SC):-\n<\/p>\n
                ”  Imparting instruction and giving education was philanthropy\n<\/p>\n
– a pious duty – in the past, and later a service.  In  recent  times  it  has
\ndeveloped into  a  business  and  now  it stands recognised as an industry.  A
\nsizeable amount of litigation centres around medical education.  The  national
\nwealth  of  available seats is scarce while the aspirants, desirous of sharing
\nsuch wealth, are numerous.  Every attempt at laying down criteria for choosing
\nthe more deserving out of the several  aspirants  is  subjected  to  challenge
\nbefore the Constitutional Courts of the country.”\n<\/p>\n
                2.  The admission to professional courses is an annual feature
\nand  equally,  challenge to the admission in most of the courses, particularly
\nthe medical courses and more particularly in P.G.  medical courses has  become
\nan  annual  feature, with the result, almost every year several writ petitions
\nare filed on the file of this Court challenging the  mode  of  admission,  and
\nseveral  clauses  contained  in  the  prospectus issued by the authorities are
\nchallenged.  Though this Court has upheld some of the rules  and  struck  down
\nsome  other  rules,  I  find that there is a constant tinkering of the clauses
\ncontained in the prospectus issued for each year leading to great  uncertainty
\nin each  year’s  admission in professional courses.  I am of the view, it will
\nbe better if a consistent policy is adopted  by  the  State  at  least  for  a
\nminimum period of five years, whatever may be the provocation for amendment of
\nthe clauses contained in the prospectus to avoid uncertainty in admissions.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   The  clauses  under challenge in the above writ petitions
\nare clauses-21 and 23  of  the  prospectus  issued  for  Postgraduate  Degree\/
\nDiploma\/5 year M.Ch.  (Neuro Surgery) Courses for the academic year 2003-20 04
\nand the clauses read as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        ”  Clause-21:- Candidates who are undergoing a Postgraduate Diploma in
\nany discipline are not  eligible  to  apply  for  any  other  Diploma  course.
\nHowever those who are completing their Diploma courses on or before 27.04.2003
\ncan  apply  for Postgraduate Degree in the concerned discipline only, provided
\nthey produce certificate from the Head  of  the  Institution  where  they  are
\nundergoing  the  Diploma course to the effect that they will be completing the
\ncourse on or before 27.04.2003.\n<\/p>\n
        Clause-23:- Candidates  who  have  already  completed  or  acquired  a
\nPostgraduate  Diploma  course  in  any  discipline  are  eligible to apply for
\nPostgraduate Degree course only  in  the  concerned  discipline  and  are  not
\neligible for any other Postgraduate Diploma\/Degree courses.”\n<\/p>\n
                4.   The  validity  of  clause  I(9)  of  General Instructions
\ncontained in the prospectus for the academic year 1997-98, which is similar to
\nclause-23, was subject matter of consideration of this Court  in  a  batch  of
\nwrit petitions  in W.P.No.1741 of 1997, etc.  and the clause which was subject
\nmatter of consideration in those writ petitions stood as under:\n<\/p>\n
        ” Clause-I(9):- A candidate who has already  acquired  a  Postgraduate
\nDiploma  course  in  any  one discipline is eligible to apply for Postgraduate
\nDegree course in that discipline during 97-98″.\n<\/p>\n
                5.   The  validity  of  the   clause-I(9)   of   the   General
\nInstructions was   considered   by  Mr.S.S.Subramani,J.    in  W.P.No.1741  of
\n1997,etc.  batch and by judgment dated 9.9.1997,  learned  Judge  allowed  the
\nwrit  petitions  on  the ground that the clause was violative of Article 14 of
\nthe Constitution of India.   Learned  Judge  held  that  there  should  be  no
\ndiscrimination  between  one  person  and  another  if, as regards the subject
\nmatter, their position is the same.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  The present clause-23 has been introduced to get over  the
\nlacuna pointed  by  Mr.S.S.Subramani,J.    in  the  unreported decision, cited
\nsupra, providing that it would apply not only to the  candidates  who  already
\nappeared  for  postgraduate  diploma course in any discipline, but also to the
\ncandidates  who  have  completed  the  postgraduate  diploma  course  in   any<\/p>\n
discipline.   The further addition in the present clause-23 is that candidates
\nwho have already completed or acquired a postgraduate diploma  course  in  one
\ndiscipline are not eligible for any other postgraduate diploma\/degree course.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe petitioner in W.P.No.15257 of 2003 submitted that the  minimum  prescribed
\neducational  qualifications should alone be the criteria for admission and the
\ndiploma qualification is  not  necessary  to  apply  for  postgraduate  degree
\ncourse.   Learned  senior  counsel  after  referring  to  clause-16(b)  of the
\nprospectus submitted that if a candidate secures postgraduate diploma  in  one
\ndiscipline,  the  duration  of  postgraduate degree course is two years in the
\nsame speciality and three years in the case  of  other  speciality.    Learned
\nsenior  counsel  submitted  that  on  the  basis  of  clauses-13 and 16 of the
\nprospectus, the petitioners are eligible to apply for the postgraduate  degree
\ncourse  in  any  discipline and clause-23 is arbitrary and unreasonable as the
\nmerit which is the sole criterion for admission is sacrificed by the operation
\nof clause-23 of the prospectus.   Learned  senior  counsel  also  referred  to
\nclause-28  of  the  prospectus  and  submitted  that  in  the  counselling the
\nadmission is made on the basis of merit and under the same  clause-28,  it  is
\nopen  to  the  candidates  to  choose  any  of  the discipline and the college
\navailable at the time of counselling and if clause-23  is  applied  in  strict
\nsense,  the  merit  which is the sole basis for admission is given a go-by and
\nthe person with lesser merit than a candidate with  higher  merit  would  gain
\nadmission.    Learned  senior  counsel  also  referred  to  the  Annexure-III,
\n“Tentative Seat  Matrix”  both  for  degree  course  and  diploma  course  and
\nsubmitted  that  there  are  many  diploma  courses  for  which  there  are no
\ncorresponding postgraduate  degree  courses  and  similarly,  there  are  many
\npostgraduate  degree courses for which there are no corresponding postgraduate
\ndiploma courses.    Learned  senior  counsel  submitted  that  the  additional
\nqualification  of  securing  a  diploma  has become a disqualification and the
\nknowledge bank cannot be regarded  as  a  disqualification.    Learned  senior
\ncounsel  submitted  that  the  eligibility  for  admission in the postgraduate
\ndegree courses is the marks obtained in the common entrance examination and if
\nthere is any dilution of quality and if the merit is  given  a  go-by  by  the
\noperation  of  clause-23 of the prospectus, it will be violative of Article-14
\nof the Constitution of India.  Learned  senior  counsel  also  submitted  that
\nthere  are  two  sets  of  procedure for admission and in so far as candidates
\ncoming  under  All  India  Entrance  Examinations  are  concerned  ,  the  bar
\nprescribed  in  clause-23 of the prospectus issued by the respondents does not
\noperate against them, but it would operate only against the candidates seeking
\nadmission on the basis of prospectus for the  year  2003-2004  issued  by  the
\nrespondents.  Learned senior counsel also referred to the prospectus issued by
\nthe  Manipal  Academy of Higher Education for the year 2002 and submitted that
\nthe prospectus issued by Manipal Academy  of  Higher  Education  provides  for
\ngrant  of  additional  marks  for  the  person  having  qualification  of P.G.
\nDiploma, but there is no such provision awarding additional marks or weightage
\nfound in the prospectus in question.  Mr.R.   Krishnamoorthy,  learned  senior
\ncounsel  submitted  that  more  than  6,000  candidates  have  taken up common
\nentrance examinations and according to him, M.D.  Pediatrics course contains a
\ntotal number of 24 seats and out of 24 seats, six seats are  allotted  to  All
\nIndia Category and out of remaining seats, five seats are available under open
\ncategory and  a  candidate  with  P.G.   Diploma in Pediatrics, even if he has
\nsecured third rank, he would not be eligible,  but  a  candidate  with  lesser
\nmarks  would  become  eligible for admission and by this process, the merit of
\nthe candidates is completely overlooked.  He therefore submitted that there is
\nunreasonableness and the merit is given a go-by by operation of  clause-23  of
\nthe prospectus.   Learned senior counsel, in support of his submission, relied
\nupon the unreported decision of this Court in W.    P.No.1741  of  1997,  etc.
\nbatch (Dr.K.Chinnusamy and  others  v.  State of Tamil Nadu rep.  by Secretary
\nto Govt., Health &  Family  Welfare  Department,  Secretariat,  Chennai-9  and
\nothers)  dated  9.9.1997, the decision of the Supreme Court in DINESH KUMAR v.
\nMOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE<\/a> (1987 (4) SCC 459), the decision of  the  Andhra
\nPradesh High  Court  in  V.SHAMSUNDER  RAO v.  STATE (AIR 1982 AP 405) and the
\ndecision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in TJINDER SINGH SIDHU v.  STATE
\n( AIR 1992 P & H 119).\n<\/p>\n
                8.  Mr.V.K.Muthusamy, learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for
\nsome  of  the  petitioners  submitted  that clause-23 should be construed with
\nreference to other clauses found in the prospectus  and  clause-23  cannot  be
\nconstrued as  a  prohibitory  clause.    His  submission  is  that  harmonious
\nconstruction of various clauses should be given and if  all  the  clauses  are
\nread  together  applying  the  principle  of  contextual  interpretation,  the
\nintention is clear that there is an implied permission and the clause 14 or 16
\nor 28 would operate subject to clause-23.  He also submitted that  acquisition
\nof  diploma  is  not  treated  as  a  speciality  course  and once eligibility
\ncriterion is satisfied, clause-23 cannot be put against the petitioners.    He
\nalso  referred  to  clause-59 and submitted that in so far as 25 percentage of
\nseats allotted for All India candidates are concerned,  the  prohibition  does
\nnot apply  and  there  is discrimination and equals are treated unequally.  He
\nalso submitted that clause-28 is not controlled by clause-23 and the effect of
\nclause-23 should be read so  that  it  cannot  override  other  clauses  which
\nprescribe eligibility criteria for admission.\n<\/p>\n
                9.   Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel appearing for some
\nother petitioners submitted that at the time of eligibility of candidates,  no
\nclassification is made and at the time of selection also, no classification is
\nmade,  but only at the time of admission, the classification is made and since
\nthere is discrimination at the time of admission, the State Government has  no
\npower to  make  such  a  classification  at  the  time  of admission.  He also
\nsubmitted that in the matter of selection, the merit is given a go-by and  the
\nrespondents  cannot  prevent  a  student  from seeking admission to a separate
\ndiscipline.  He also submitted that the clause  is  invalid  in  view  of  the
\nprovisions of the Medical Council of India Regulations framed under section 33
\nof the  Medical  Council  Act.    His  further submission is that after common
\nentrance examinations, there can be no scope to prefer some of the  candidates
\nand  no further classification is possible after common entrance examinations.
\nHis further submission is that clause-23 is not a separate clause and it  must
\nbe  construed  in  the  light  of other clauses and the prohibition imposed in
\nclause-23 is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  Mr.Raja and Mr.Sundar, learned counsel who are  appearing
\nfor  other  petitioners also advanced arguments and they referred to clause-28
\nand the Medical Council of India Postgraduate  Medical  Education  Regulations
\nand  submitted  that  it  is  not  open  to  the  State Government to select a
\ncandidate not on the basis of merit and deny  admission  on  the  ground  that
\ncandidate has earlier secured postgraduate diploma course.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   Learned  Special  Government Pleader (Education), on the
\nother hand, submitted that the petitioners  are  not  having  any  fundamental
\nright to  admission  or  to  pursue  higher  education.    He  referred to the
\ndecisions of the Supreme Court in UNNIKRISHNAN,J.P.  v.  STATE OF A.P.    (AIR<\/a>
\n1993 SC 2178) and  T.M.A.    PAI FOUNDATION & ORS.  v.  STATE OF KARNATAKA (JT<\/a>
\n1993(1) SC 474) and submitted that the petitioners have  no  vested  right  or
\nstatutory right to pursue higher education and it is not open to them to claim
\nadmission as  a  matter of right.  Learned counsel submitted that the right to
\nseek admission is limited subject to the compliance of certain basic  criteria
\nand  they  have  no  right  to  admission,  but  they  have only a right to be
\nconsidered for  admission.    He  also  submitted  that  the  Government   run
\neducational  institutions  and  they  have  the power to regulate admission of
\ncandidates and clause-23 is a regulatory clause  and  the  burden  is  on  the
\npetitioners  to  prove  that  the clause is violative of the provisions of the
\nConstitution and the petitioners have not elaborated or proved that  clause-23
\nis  violative  of  any of the provisions of the Constitution and clause-23 has
\nbeen introduced only with the object that if a person has  already  secured  a
\npostgraduate diploma in one discipline, he must pursue the postgraduate degree
\ncourse  in  the  same discipline and if he is allowed to branch off to another
\ndiscipline, it would result in a situation that he may not be a specialist  in
\ntwo branches.  Learned counsel submitted that if there are candidates with two
\nspecialties, then, it would affect the rights of other candidates who have not
\neven  secured postgraduate diploma or postgraduate degree and clause-23 is not
\na prohibitory clause and only  regulates  the  mode  of  admission  permitting
\ncandidates who have secured postgraduate diploma to pursue postgraduate degree
\ncourse in  the  same  discipline.    He  submitted  that  the  candidates with
\npostgraduate diploma form one group and the  candidates  without  postgraduate
\ndiploma  or postgraduate degree form another group and there are two different
\ngroups and since they fall in two different groups, the question of  violation
\nof Article-14  of  the Constitution does not arise.  He submitted that in view
\nof the availability of limited number of seats in Postgraduate  degree  course
\nin medicines,  the  clause-23  has  been  introduced.   He submitted that if a
\nperson who has secured postgraduate diploma in Pediatrics is allowed  to  seek
\nadmission in  M.S.    Ophthalmology,  one  candidate  may  not  specialize  in
\npediatrics or another candidate may not specialize in Ophthalmology  with  the
\nresult,  the  candidate,  who had secured postgraduate diploma or postgraduate
\ndegree in two specialties, may not  be  able  to  specialize  in  one  of  the
\ndisciplines  and  the  clause  has  been introduced keeping in mind the public
\ninterest  so  that  candidates  who  have  secured  diploma  in  a  particular
\npostgraduate  faculty  should  pursue  further course in that line only and he
\ncannot deviate from the line and branch off to another speciality.    He  also
\nsubmitted  that these are all colleges run by the Government and it is open to
\nthe Government to prescribe norms for selection  and  other  avenues  are  not
\nclosed and clause-23 will override other clauses.  He also submitted that some
\nof  the candidates have filed writ petitions after the counselling is over and
\nthose candidates have approached the Court belatedly, the writ petitions filed
\nby them should be dismissed on the ground  of  laches.    In  support  of  his
\nsubmissions,  learned  Special  Government  Pleader  relied  on  the following
\ndecisions:\n<\/p>\n
1.  CHITRALEKHA v.  STATE OF MYSORE (AIR<\/a> 1964 S.C.  1823)\n<\/p>\n
2.  D.N.CHANCHALA v.  STATE OF MYSORE (AIR<\/a> 1971 SC 1762)\n<\/p>\n
3.  THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION & OTHERS v.       Dr.V.      RAMALAKSHMI<\/a>
\n(1999 WRIT L.R.  481)<\/p>\n
4.  STATE OF H.P.  v.  PADAM DEV (2002) 4 SCC 510)\n<\/p>\n
5.  Dr.V.GEETHA v.  THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS<\/a> (2003      WRIT L.R.  79)<\/p>\n
                12.   Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy,  learned  senior  counsel,  in  his
\nreply, submitted that the assumption of the Government that the acquisition of
\npostgraduate diploma would become waste if the candidate goes to other  branch
\nfor  his degree as the knowledge acquired in one field would not become waste.
\nHe submitted that the subjects of study are not totally unrelated and what  is
\na qualification  has  become  a  disqualification now.  He therefore submitted
\nthat clause-23 is violative of  Article  14  of  the  Constitution  of  India.
\nMr.V.K.Muthusamy and  Mr.K.M.   Vijayan, learned senior counsel also supported
\nthe arguments advanced by Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel.\n<\/p>\n
                13.  I have considered the submissions of Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy,
\nMr.V.K.Muthusamy and Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel and also Mr.  Raja
\nand  Mr.Sundar,  learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   petitioners   and
\nMr.Rajasekaran,  learned  Special Government Pleader (Education) appearing for
\nthe respondents.   I  am  of  the  view,  clause-21  and  clause-23  are  both
\npermissive as  well as regulatory.  They are permissive in the sense that they
\npermit candidates who have already completed and acquired postgraduate diploma
\ncourse in anyone of the disciplines to apply for postgraduate degree course in
\nthe same discipline and it is regulatory in  the  sense  that  it  prevents  a
\nperson  from  applying  to some other discipline for postgraduate degree other
\nthan the discipline in which he has acquired postgraduate diploma.   Clause-23
\nis also conscious of the fact that there are limited number of seats available
\nin postgraduate degree courses and there are large number of aspirants and the
\npreference should be given to a candidate who has secured postgraduate diploma
\nto pursue further study in the same direction.  Clause-23 is also blind to the
\nground  realities  of the situation that there are only few seats available in
\nthe postgraduate degree courses and the first option of the candidate will  be
\nto   seek  postgraduate  degree  in  the  same  discipline  in  which  he  has
\npostgraduate diploma and only if the seat in that diploma is not available, he
\nwill opt for another postgraduate degree course which will be closely  related<\/p>\n
to  the subject in which he had postgraduate diploma and also to the fact that
\npostgraduate degree courses are more in number than the  postgraduate  diploma
\ncourses.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   There  is  no  difficulty in accepting the submission of
\nMr.V.K.  Muthusamy, learned  senior  counsel  that  all  the  clauses  in  the
\nprospectus should be read in a harmonious manner and if clause-21 or clause-23
\nis  read  in  the  manner  indicated above, the clause will be consistent with
\nclauses-13,15, 16 and 28 of the prospectus.  I  am  of  the  view,  since  the
\nclause-23  also  permits  a  candidate to apply for postgraduate degree in the
\nsame discipline in which he has secured postgraduate diploma, the Clause-16(a)
\nproviding that the diploma is not  a  necessary  qualification  to  apply  for
\npostgraduate degree course will not be in any way inconsistent with clause-23.
\nSimilarly,  clause-16(b)  which  provides  that  the  duration of postgraduate
\ndegree course for the diploma candidates who have undergone two  year  courses
\nshall be two years in the same speciality and three years in other specialties
\nwill  also  not be inconsistent as the candidates who have acquired diploma in
\none discipline would be required to undergo postgraduate  degree  course  only
\nfor a  period  of two years in the same discipline.  As far as the fixation of
\nduration of three years in respect of other speciality is concerned,  it  must
\nbe  held  that there is some inconsistency between clause-16(b) and clause-23.
\nSimilarly, clause-28 enabling candidates to choose any discipline available at
\nthe time of counselling  would  mean  that  a  candidate  who  has  undertaken
\npostgraduate  diploma course may choose postgraduate degree course in the same
\ndiscipline and  there  would  be  some  inconsistency  between  clause-23  and
\nclause-28.\n<\/p>\n
                15.    The   candidates  who  have  acquired  diploma  in  one
\ndiscipline has not challenged Clause-23 prohibiting  them  to  apply  for  any
\nother postgraduate  diploma course in another discipline.  The petitioners who
\nhave challenged clauses 21 and 23 are persons who have  acquired  postgraduate
\ndiploma  in one discipline seeking admission for postgraduate degree course in
\nanother discipline and not in postgraduate diploma course.  Hence, it  is  not
\nnecessary  to  consider the validity of clause-23 with reference to candidates
\nwho have acquired postgraduate diploma in one discipline seeking admission  in
\npostgraduate diploma in another discipline.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  There is no difficulty in accepting the submission of the
\nlearned  Special Government Pleader (Education) that the State which bears the
\nfinancial burden for running the Government Colleges is entitled to  lay  down
\ncriteria  for admission in the colleges run by the State and the State has the
\npower to decide the source from which the admission  could  be  made  and  the
\nclause  providing some restriction is not arbitrary and not unreasonable which
\nhas the nexus with the object of the Rules.  The decision of the Supreme Court
\nin D.N.CHANCHALA v.  STATE OF MYSORE (AIR<\/a> 1971 SC 1762) and  the  decision  of
\nthis Court in  Dr.    V.GEETHA v.  THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS<\/a> (2003 WRIT
\nL.R.  79) support the case of the respondents to this  extent.    Equally,  in
\nSUGANTHI v.  STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER (1984 WRIT L.R.  249), a Division
\nBench  of  this Court considered the validity of clause 7(1) of the Prospectus
\nwhich denied a candidate to apply for admission to M.B.B.S.  course, if he had
\nalready got admission  in  other  course  such  as  Engineering,  Agriculture,
\nVeterinary BDS, B.Pharm, etc., and the Division Bench of this Court, following
\nthe decision of the Supreme Court in Chitralekha v.  State of Mysore (AIR<\/a> 1964
\nSC 1823) held as under:-\n<\/p>\n
        ” 5.  Selection of best candidates for admission to available seats in
\ndifferent category in professional colleges with an eye to restrict the number
\non  some  reasonable  basis since the colleges cannot hold beyond a particular
\nnumber of students, is a power given to the authorities after evolving certain
\npolicies for the selection.  One such  policy  in  present  case  is  to  deny
\nadmission  to  those  students  who  have  already  got  into the professional
\ncolleges mentioned in clause 7(1) of the  prospectus  and  had  undergone  six
\nmonths course  (first semester).  Such a policy, in our opinion, is reasonable
\nand has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved,  viz.,  manning  all  the
\ncolleges  run  by  the  Government  efficiently  and in distributing the seats
\navailable equitably.  If a candidate studying in an engineering college, which
\ncourse also got only a limited number of seats and for  which  also  there  is
\ncompetition, and after writing the first semester, is allowed to compete for a
\nseat  in  the  medical  college, it will definitely deprive the candidates who
\nhave come in for the first time for  selection  to  the  medical  course.    A
\ncandidate who has already secured a seat in a professional college stands on a
\ndifferent category and that candidate’s chances of becoming a graduate in that
\nprofessional college  is  a  fait accompli.  Considering the limited number of
\nseats in various professional colleges, the Government thought it fit  to  lay
\ndown a  policy  as  mentioned in clause 7(1) of the prospectus.  Further, if a
\ncandidate who has got a seat in the engineering college deserts  it,  for  the
\nadmission  which  he  gets  in  another  professional  college such as medical
\ncollege, the seat in that particular engineering college will go as  a  waste.
\nThe  wisdom  of the Government thought it necessary to bring in such a policy,
\nwhich has a nexus in our opinion for the object  to  be  achieved.    By  this
\npolicy  there will be equitable distribution of limited seats available in all
\nthe professional colleges manned by the State after determining the  merit  of
\nthe candidates eligible to appear for such a selection.”\n<\/p>\n
                17.  There can be no difficulty in holding that the Government
\nwhich  runs  professional  colleges has the power to frame a scheme and it has
\nthe power to restrict admission on reasonable terms and regulate the admission
\nand distribute the seats equitably to those who seek admission.  The  decision
\nof  the  Division  bench  of this Court in THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION &
\nOTHERS v.  Dr.  V.  RAMALAKSHMI<\/a> (1999 WRIT L.R.481) also supports the case  of
\nthe  respondents  as  this  Court has held that the decision of the Government
\npartakes a decision of policy  depending  upon  exigencies  of  situation  and
\nhaving  regard  to  the  limited  number  of seats available and the financial
\ncommitment involved for the State, it is open to the  Government  to  regulate
\nadmission of candidates to the courses in higher studies.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  The  decision  of  the Supreme Court in STATE OF M.P.  v.\n<\/p>\n
GOPAL D.  TIRTHANI (2003) 9 ILD 13 (SC) also recognises that it is open to the
\nState to regulate admission provided the regulation made is not  arbitrary  or
\nunreasonable.  I  am  unable  to  accept  the  submission of Mr.K.  M.Vijayan,
\nlearned senior counsel that after the Medical Council of India  Post  Graduate
\nMedical  Education Regulations, 2000 came into force, the state Government has
\nno power to prescribe any condition for admission.  There can be no doubt that
\nthe regulations framed by the Medical Council  of  India  should  be  complied
\nwith,  but,  at the same time, the Supreme Court in number of cases has upheld
\nthe power of the State Government to identify the source of admission for  the
\ncandidates  seeking  admission  to  the  postgraduate  medical courses and the
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF MP v.  GOPAL D.  TIRTHANI<\/a>  (2003)  9
\nILD  13  (SC)  is  relevant as the Supreme Court has taken note of the Medical
\nCouncil of India Post Graduate Medical Regulations and  upheld  the  quota  of
\nseats  fixed for inservice candidates in medical postgraduate admission in the
\nState of Madhya Pradesh.  In other words, the source of the power of the State
\nGovernment can be traced to the decision of the Supreme Court, cited supra.  I
\nam of the view, while the State Government  should  comply  with  the  Medical
\nCouncil  of  India Postgraduate Medical Regulations, it can also frame its own
\nregulations for admission to Postgraduate medical courses which are not in any
\nway inconsistent with  the  Medical  Council  of  India  Postgraduate  Medical
\nRegulations  provided  the  regulation has a reasonable nexus to the object of
\nthe Rules.  Therefore the submission of Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned senior counsel
\nthat clause-23 is violative of the provisions  of  Medical  Council  of  India
\nPostgraduate  Medical  Regulations  and hence, it should be struck down is not
\nacceptable, as, in my view, clause-23 is in no way conflict with  the  Medical
\nCouncil of India Postgraduate Medical Regulations.\n<\/p>\n
                19.   The  next  question  that arises is whether clause-21 or
\nclause-23 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  It is well
\nsettled by several decisions of the Supreme Court that to withstand  the  test
\nof  reasonable  classification  within  the  meaning  of  Article-1  4  of the
\nConstitution of India, the classification must satisfy the twin test,  namely,\n<\/p>\n
(i)  it  must  be  founded  on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
\npersons or things placed in a group from those left out or placed not  in  the
\ngroup,  and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation with the object
\nsought to be achieved.  In AIIMS STUDENTS’ UNION v.  AIIMS (2002) 1  SCC  428)
\nMr.R.C.Lahoti,J.  speaking for the Bench held that the merit must be test when
\nchoosing the  best.  The rule of equal chance for equal marks is another basic
\nrule.  Similarly, equality of opportunity for every person in the country is a
\nconstitutional guarantee.  A candidate who gets more  marks  than  another  is
\nentitled  to  preference  for  admission  and  this  proposition  has  greater
\nimportance for the higher levels of education like  postgraduate  courses  and
\nthe higher the level of the speciality, the lesser the role of reservation.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   It  is  equally  true that the Supreme Court in STATE OF
\nH.P.  v.  PADAM DEV (2002) 4 SCC 510) has held that the classification between
\nthe candidates must be distinct and clearly defined as regards the eligibility
\ncriteria  of  candidates,  the  choice  of  candidates,   the   training   and
\npost-training assistance and most importantly, the objectives of the training.
\nIt is  no  doubt  true  that  the Supreme Court in ASHUTOSH GUPTA v.  STATE OF
\nRAJASTHAN<\/a> (2002)4 SCC 34) has held that the concept  of  equality  before  law
\ndoes  not  involve  the  idea  of absolute equality amongst all which may be a
\nphysical impossibility and all that Article 14 guarantees is the similarity of
\ntreatment and not identical treatment and the protection of  equal  laws  does
\nnot  mean that all laws must be uniform and equality before the law means that
\namong  equals  the  law  should  be  equal  and  the  law  should  be  equally
\nadministered  and  that  the likes should be treated alike and equality before
\nthe law does not mean that things which are  different  shall  be  treated  as
\nthough  they  were  the  same and a legislature which has to deal with diverse
\nproblems arising out of  an  infinite  variety  of  human  relations  must  of
\nnecessity,  have the power of making special laws to attain particular objects
\nand for that purpose it must have wider powers of selection or  classification
\nof  persons  and  things  upon  which  such  laws  are  to  operate  and  mere
\ndifferentiation or inequality  of  treatment  does  not  “per  se”  amount  to
\ndiscrimination  within  the  inhibition of the equal protection clause and the
\nState has always the power to make  classification  on  a  basis  of  rational
\ndistinctions relevant to the particular subject to be dealt with.\n<\/p>\n
                21.   As  far  as the decision of this Court in Dr.V.GEETHA v.\n<\/p>\n
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS (2003  WRIT  L.R.    79)  is  concerned,  the
\ndecision, in my opinion, has no application as in that case the petitioner had
\nalready acquired the  qualification  of  P.G.   Degree, namely, M.S.  (General
\nSurgery) and by virtue of the relevant clauses of the prospectus she was  made
\nineligible to  apply  for  and to join another P.G.  Degree or Diploma course.
\nIn that situation, this Court held that it is not open to  the  petitioner  to
\nput  forward  the  plea of discrimination as the petitioner is not identically
\nplaced or on par with any other candidate with a qualification of Bachelor  of
\nMedicine and  Surgery.    This  Court  also  held  that having acquired a P.G.
\ndegree Qualification, the petitioner seeks to acquire another P.G.  Degree  in
\nanother  speciality  and it would result in undue advantage being conferred on
\nthe petitioner while depriving a valuable opportunity to  other  graduates  in
\nMedicine.   This  decision,  in  my  opinion, has no application at all as the
\npetitioner in that case  had  already  acquired  postgraduate  degree  in  one
\ndiscipline  and  if  she was allowed to acquire another postgraduate degree in
\nsome other speciality, then, it would deprive the chances of another candidate
\nwith no postgraduate degree qualification to acquire a P.G.    Degree  and  in
\nthat  context, this Court held that there is no violation of Article 14 of the
\nConstitution of India.  I am of the view that it is not permissible to  equate
\na  person who has already acquired a postgraduate degree with a person who has
\nnot acquired a postgraduate  degree  or  a  person  who  has  secured  only  a
\npostgraduate  diploma, and it is well settled that a degree and a diploma in a
\nparticular discipline do not stand on the same footing as there are  essential
\ndifferences  between  the  acquisition  of  a  degree and the acquisition of a
\ndiploma in a particular discipline  and  the  candidate  with  a  postgraduate
\ndiploma  is  required  to  undergo  two  more or three more years of intensive
\nstudy, as the case may be, to acquire the P.G.  degree and become a specialist
\nin that particular discipline.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  As far as the decision of this Court in THE  DIRECTOR  OF
\nMEDICAL EDUCATION, &  OTHERS  v.    Dr.    V.RAMALAKSHMI<\/a> (1999 WRIT LR.481) is
\nconcerned, the decision also has no application as the clause  dealt  with  by
\nthe  Division  Bench  was  one  relating  to  service  candidates  and  if any
\ndisciplinary proceeding was pending against them, the  clause  prohibited  the
\nservice candidates  from  sending in application.  This Court, while upholding
\nthe clause on the ground that  it  is  not  violative  of  Article-14  of  the
\nConstitution  of  India,  held  that  it is open to the Government to regulate
\nadmission of candidates who were already in service to such courses in  higher
\nstudies,  of only those who have no cloud around them and who have no mixed or
\nadverse record of service.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  As far as the counter affidavit filed by the  respondents
\nis  concerned,  there  are 23 courses in postgraduate degree and 17 courses in
\npostgraduate diploma available and the total number of seats  in  postgraduate
\ndegree are 416 and postgraduate diploma are 476.  Though
\nthere  are  23  courses in postgraduate degree, there are only 12 specialities
\nfor which postgraduate diploma courses  are  available  preceding  the  degree
\ncourses.   In  the  counter  affidavit  it  is  also stated that there are 300
\nGovernment Hospitals situate in 28 Districts of Tamil Nadu  in  which  various
\nspeciality departments  are  available.   It is also stated that the policy of
\nthe Government is  to  appoint  Medical  Officers  with  minimum  Postgraduate
\ndiploma qualification in the hospitals so that the people from the rural areas
\nneed  not  have  to  travel  to  the  referral hospitals attached with medical
\ncolleges.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  The policy of the  Government  seems  to  be  that  if  a
\ncandidate  with  DCH  qualification  which  is a postgraduate diploma in child
\nhealth subsequently takes postgraduate degree  course  in  E.N.T.    which  is
\nentirely  a different speciality, his training in the previous speciality will
\nnot be ulitlised either for the public or for the Government.   The  stand  of
\nthe  Government  shows  that  it  equates  a postgraduate degree course with a
\npostgraduate diploma course and  an  additional  qualification  by  way  of  a
\ndiploma  is  treated  as a disqualification for pursuing higher degree course.
\nAs already seen, there are only 12 specialities in  the  postgraduate  diploma
\ncourse  for  which there are corresponding specialities in postgraduate degree
\ncourse.  It is also possible to  visualise  the  case  of  a  person  who  has
\nobtained a postgraduate diploma in child health, viz., DCH and if he is unable
\nto get  a seat in M.D.  Pediatrics due to limited number of seats available in
\nthat particular faculty and if he pursues his studies  by  choosing  M.D.    (
\nGeneral  Medicine),  it cannot be stated that the knowledge acquired by him by
\nway of diploma in Child Health would become useless and  irrelevant,  when  he
\npractises as  M.D.    (General  Medicine), particularly in the case of medical
\nfield.  It cannot also be stated that the diploma in Child Health  is  totally
\nunrelated to the M.D.  (General Medicine) and with the higher qualification in
\nM.D.   (General  Medicine)  as  well  as the qualification of diploma in Child
\nHealth, he may be able to attend more efficiently the patients  in  the  rural
\nareas both  in  the  case  of  child  health  and  in  general  medicine.  The
\ndisqualification  or  the  restriction  in  clause-21  or  clause-23  of   the
\nprospectus  not to permit a candidate from applying to any other speciality is
\nalso not consonance with clause-16(b) or clause-28  of  the  prospectus.    By
\nvirtue  of  the  operation  of  restriction  found  in clause-23, the right of
\ncandidates to  choose  any  of  the  disciplines  available  at  the  time  of
\ncounselling  is  lost  and  at  the  time  of  counselling, if a candidate has
\nacquired a postgraduate diploma in Child health, he would not normally opt for
\nM.D.  (General Medicine) and if he opts for the same, then,  the  duration  of
\nthe postgraduate  degree  course  would  be  three years.  Therefore the first
\noption in such cases would be to opt for M.D.  ( Pediatrics) and if the  seats
\nare  not  available  in  that  discipline,  the candidate may choose any other
\ndiscipline.  Hence, clause-23 is against the provisions  of  clause  16(b)  or
\nclause-28  and  clause-23 takes away the right of a candidate to choose any of
\nthe subjects when he seeks to pursue a different speciality.   Therefore,  the
\nsubmissions   of  Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy,  Mr.V.K.Muthusamy  and  Mr.K.M.Vijayan,
\nlearned senior counsel are well-founded in this respect that all  the  clauses
\nshould  be read harmoniously and they should not be read in such a manner that
\none clause is violative of another clause.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  It is well settled that the Government has the  power  to
\nregulate  in  the matter of admission of candidates, it does not mean that the
\nregulation of admission of candidates should be unreasonable and there must be
\nnexus between the clause in question and the object  of  the  Rules.    It  is
\nevident  that  all  the  candidates  are treated equally at the time of common
\nentrance examination, but, at the time of  selection,  they  are  not  treated
\nalike.   The candidates coming under clause-23 are denied admission not on the
\nground  of  any  merit,  but  only  on  the  ground  that  they  have  secured
\npostgraduate diploma  in  some  other  discipline.  The effect of clause-23 is
\nthat a person with lesser merit is preferred,  but  a  candidate  with  higher
\nmerit  is  denied  admission  on  the score that he has secured a postgraduate
\ndiploma in some other faculty.  In other words, by operation of  clause-23  of
\nthe  prospectus,  there  will  be a serious dent to the merit based selection,
\nparticularly in postgraduate degree level.\n<\/p>\n
                26.  The Andhra Pradesh High  Court  in  V.SHAMSUNDER  RAO  v.\n<\/p>\n
STATE ( AIR 1982 A.P.  405) has held that it is preposterous to deny admission
\nto  a  candidate  who  by virtue of his merit is entitled to admission to M.S.
\n(General Surgery) on the  mere  ground  that  he  had  earlier  qualified  for
\nadmitted to the Postgraduate Diploma in Child Health to which he was admission
\nand registered  only  because  he could not earlier qualify for M.S.  (General
\nSurgery).  The Court has also held that the  rule  making  authority  did  not
\nintend  the applicants who had not already secured the postgraduate diploma or
\ndegree to be denied admission in a particular subject merely  because  he  had
\nregistered  himself  in  a  particular  subject  for  the postgraduate diploma
\ncourse.  It is also relevant to  notice  here  that  Madhava  Reddy,  Ag.C.J.,
\nspeaking  for  the Bench held that any training a candidate may have undergone
\nwould not go waste if he is admitted to M.S.  (General Surgery).    The  basis
\nbehind the introduction of clause-23 is that since the candidate had undergone
\na postgraduate diploma course in one faculty and if he is allowed to undertake
\npostgraduate  degree  course in another faculty, the knowledge acquired by him
\nin the diploma course would become waste.  In my view, there is no  basis  for
\nthe  said  assumption  and  it  also  has  no  relevance when the candidate is
\nselected on the basis of merit and merit alone.\n<\/p>\n
                27.  The Punjab and  Haryana  High  Court  also  considered  a
\nsimilar question in  TEJINDER  SINGH  SIDHU  v.   STATE (AIR 1992 P & H.  119)
\nwhere a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana  high  Court  considered  the
\nvalidity of the clause contained in the prospectus which provided that doctors
\nwho  have  had postgraduate qualifications whether degree or diploma should be
\nselected only for their respective speciality in which they have  done  degree
\nor diploma, and held that it is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of
\nIndia  and it is void as the securing of a higher qualification had the effect
\nof making a candidate ineligible whereas  in  fact,  it  ought  to  have  been
\nconsidered as  a  merit.   The Punjab and Haryana High Court Court followed an
\nearlier judgment of a Bench of that Court reported in State of Punjab v.   Dr.
\nHarnek  Singh  Medical  Officer<\/a>  (1989 (3) SLR 802) wherein it was observed as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
                ” A person with higher qualifications in the speciality  other
\nthan  the  one  in  which  he is seeking appointment is ineligible whereas the
\nother members of the service having lower qualifications  are  still  eligible
\nfor appointment.   It  is  an unreasonable discrimination.  The members of the
\nservice having higher qualifications have been placed  at  an  disadvantageous
\nposition qua  the other members having lower qualifications.  The condition is
\nviolative of Art.14 of the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
                28.  I have already referred to  the  unreported  decision  of
\nMr.S.S.  Subramani,J.   in  W.P.No.1741  of  1997, etc.  batch, dated 9.9.1997
\nwhere the learned Judge considered the decision of the Supreme  Court  in  Dr.
\nDINESH  KUMAR  v.MOTILAL  NEHRU  MEDICAL  COLLEGE  (1987)  4  SCC 459) where a
\ndirection was given by the Supreme  Court  to  evolve  a  common  pattern  for
\nadmission to  postgraduate  medical  courses.   Learned Judge also noticed the
\ndecisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court and  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court,
\ncited  supra,  and held that so far as basic qualification for eligibility for
\nadmission to postgraduate  medical  courses  are  concerned,  the  respondents
\nshould   not  have  treated  the  petitioners  separately  and  the  principle
\nunderlying Article-14 of the Constitution prohibits the same.   Learned  Judge
\naccepted the   arguments  that  M.B.B.S.    is  the  basic  qualification  for
\neligibility for admission  to  the  postgraduate  medical  courses  and  basic
\nqualification  alone  should  be considered and merely because the ca ndidates
\nhave obtained a diploma in some discipline, that should  not  be  taken  as  a
\ndisqualification.   I  am of the view that the judgment of Mr.S.S.Subramani,J.
\nwould equally apply in considering the validity of clause-23 of the prospectus
\nin question.\n<\/p>\n
                29.  Though the unreported decision of Mr.S.S.Subramani,J.  in
\nW.P.  No.1741 of 1997, etc.  batch was  sought  to  be  distinguished  on  the
\nground  that  the  clause considered by the learned Judge is different, I find
\nthat the ratio laid down by  the  learned  Judge  is  that  for  admission  to
\npostgraduate  degree  course, the basic qualification should be considered and
\nacquisition of diploma in some other discipline is not to  be  regarded  as  a
\ndisqualification.\n<\/p>\n
                30.  There  is  also  an  additional reason.  Clause-59 of the
\nprospectus  provides  that  out  of  the  seats  sanctioned  for  postgraduate
\ndiploma\/degree and M.D.S.  Courses, 25% of seats are reserved for allotment to
\nAll India  candidates  on  the basis of All India selection.  In so far as the
\ncandidates selected under All India  selection  are  concerned,  there  is  no
\nprohibition  and  it  is  open  to  those candidates to pursue any discipline,
\nthough they might have secured postgraduate  diploma  in  another  discipline.
\nThough  the  source  of  admission may be different, I am of the view that the
\nprohibition against admission to postgraduate  degree  course  in  some  other
\ndiscipline   for  the  same  candidate  is  violative  of  Article-14  of  the
\nConstitution of India.  As already observed by me, the merit is sacrificed  by
\nway of the restriction found in clause-23 and the restriction goes against the
\nobject  of  the  Rule  and it has no nexus or link with the object of the Rule
\nproviding for merit based  selection.    The  submission  of  learned  Special
\nGovernment Pleader (Education) that the petitioners have not given the details
\nof  discrimination  is  unsustainable  as  senior  counsel  appearing  for the
\npetitioners have clearly demonstrated before the Court the  unequal  treatment
\nthat  would  be meted out to the petitioners by the operation of clause-23 and
\nhow the merit will be a casualty by the process of selection adopted by virtue
\nof clause-23 of the prospectus.\n<\/p>\n
                31.  As far as the decision of a Full Bench of this  Court  in
\nMURALI,R.  Dr.   v.  Dr.R.KAMALAKKANNAN<\/a> (1999(III) CTC 675) relied upon by the
\nlearned Special Government Pleader is concerned, the decision has  hardly  any
\napplication.  The Bench noticed the decision in Dr.Preeti Srivastava v.  State
\nof  Madhya Pradesh<\/a> (1999 (4) Scale 579) where the Supreme Court also held that
\nin super speciality cases merit alone is to be considered.  It was also  found
\nby  the  Bench  of  this  Court  that  from the merit list in both service and
\nnon-service candidates, the merit was not the casualty and only on  the  basis
\nof merit,  the  classification  was  made.   However, in the present case, the
\nmerit is the casualty as a person in lower rank in the competitive examination
\nwill bypass a candidate who has secured higher mark in the same examination.\n<\/p>\n
                32.  Learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that in
\nsome cases, the petitioners have approached the Court after the counselling is
\nover and therefore, they are not eligible and their case should be  considered
\non  a  different footing and their petitions should be dismissed on the ground
\nof laches.  I find that Mr.S.S.Subramani,J.  in  the  unreported  decision  in
\nW.P.No.1741 of  1997,  etc.    batch,  has  also  considered  the  question of
\nacquiescence in a detailed manner and held that where there  is  violation  of
\nArticle  14  of the Constitution, the question of acquiescence does not arise.
\nIt is relevant to notice that in the case before Mr.S.S.Subramani,J., some  of
\nthe  candidates  approached  the  Court after the counselling was over and the
\nlearned Judge held that the mere fact that the petitioners did not participate
\nin the counselling would not debar them from approaching the  court  as  there
\nwas  misinterpretation  given  by  the respondents which was challenged in the
\nwrit petitions.  I respectfully follow  the  decision  of  Mr.S.S.Subramani,J.
\nand  hold  that  where  there  is a question of violation of Article-14 of the
\nConstitution of India, there cannot be any question of estoppel or  waiver  in
\nsuch cases.   Moreover, I find that the persons who have come to the Court are
\nwait-list candidates and  out  of  the  petitioners,  four  are  entitled  for
\nadmission and other petitioners are still in the wait-list.\n<\/p>\n
                33.   I  therefore hold that clause-21 or 23 which prohibits a
\ncandidate who has already completed or acquired a postgraduate diploma in  one
\ndiscipline   from  applying  for  a  postgraduate  degree  course  in  another
\ndiscipline is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of  India,  and  the
\nresult is  that  all the writ petitions stand allowed to the above extent.  No
\ncosts.  Connected WPMPs.  are closed.  The impleading petition is ordered.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nWebsite:  Yes<\/p>\n
na.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Govt.,
\nHealth and Family Welfare Dept.,
\nState of Tamil Nadu,
\nFort St.George,
\nChennai-9.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Director of Medical Education,
\nKilpauk, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Secretary,
\nPostgraduate Degree\/Diploma Selection
\nCommittee, Director of Medical Education,
\n162, E.V.R.Periyar High Road,
\nKilpauk, Chennai-10.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29\/09\/2003 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN W.P.No.11266 of 2003 and W.P.Nos. 11845, 13146, 14986, 15243, 15257, 19796, 19839 and 20423 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.Nos.14137, 14868, 16501, 25655, 18763, 19134, 19153, 24755, 24801 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203629","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-11-08T10:15:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-08T10:15:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003\"},\"wordCount\":7498,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003\",\"name\":\"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-11-08T10:15:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-11-08T10:15:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003","datePublished":"2003-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-08T10:15:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003"},"wordCount":7498,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003","name":"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-11-08T10:15:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-k-p-manimaran-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-29-september-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.K.P.Manimaran vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 September, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203629","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203629"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203629\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203629"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203629"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203629"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}