AYYAPPAN PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner in O. P. No. 25387/2000 is the appellant. The challenge in the Original Petition was against the manner of reservation of seats for admission to M. S. (Orthopaedics) in the Health Services Quota as contained in Ext. P4 Prospectus for P. G. Degree / Diploma Courses, 2000. Two seats are reserved to M. S. (Orthopaedics). Petitioner contended that allotment of these two seats to Rural Services Quota and Difficult Rural Areas Quota totally ignoring Seniority in Service Quota is arbitrary and discriminatory. According to the petitioner one seat should have been reserved in the Seniority in Service Quota. Petitioner claims that he is the seniormost among the applicants and if one seat has been allotted to the Seniority in Service Quota he would be entitled for admission to the above seat. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Original Petition accepting the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader that as per the policy of the Government for the year 2000 the two seats are to be shared between Rural Service Quota and Difficult Rural Areas Quota and that in policy matters this Court should not interfere. Aggrieved by the above the petitioner has come up in appeal.

(2.) Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court a counter affidavit was filed and thereafter a statement was also filed producing all the earlier Government orders relating to the reservation of seats in different Post Graduate Courses for candidates from amount the Health Services Department. It is seen from the documents produced by the respondents as well as from its counter affidavit that the category Difficult Rural Areas Quota was introduced for the first time in the year 1997. Till then there were only two categories, namely Service Seniority Quota and Rural Services Quota. The circumstances under which such a special category had to be recognised in the already existing category of Rural Services Quota are explained in Ext. R1(e) Government order dated 22.7.1997. In the annexure to R1(e) against M. S. (Orthopaedics) it was shown that one seat is reserved for Difficult Rural Areas Quota and one seat for Service Seniority Quota.

(3.) In Para.7 of the counter affidavit the respondent has explained how a further classification of Difficult Rural Services Quota was necessitated. Iit is contended that there were several complaints before the Government that a single classification of rural areas is not proper. In the rural area itself there are places where there is difficulty for accessibility, lack of other infrastructure facilities such as water, electricity, accommodation etc. It was under these circumstances of the Government decided to further classify the rural areas into Rural Service Quota and Difficult Rural Areas Quota based on certain guidelines regarding the availability of basic facilities in the area. To this extent the statement in the counter affidavit would go in support of the contention raised by the petitioner. But in the latter portion of Para.7 it is stated that for the year 1999-2000 the Prospectus Committee thought of allotting the two seats to Rural Service Quota and Difficult Rural Areas Quota as the Committee found that there was continuous reservation for the three years for Seniority in Service Quota and Difficult Rural Areas Quota. It is further contended that the Committee makes the allotment of seats to these reservation quotas depending on the assessment of the conditions and circumstances prevailing at the particular year. This statement is very vague. Apart from the above we are of the view that the Prospectus Committee cannot have any power to change the rotation of the quota if there is no such clear provision in the Government order governing the field.