RAGHAVA PANICKER Vs. ADMINISTRATORUNION TERRITORYLAKSHDWEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been in the service of the 1st respondent, Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, for over 15 years. The 1st petitioner's daughter and the second petitioner's son were applicants for admission to the Pre-Medical/M. B. B. S. course for the year 1980-81 in the Medical Colleges in India against the four seats allocated by the Government of India for the students of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. It would appear that it was out of the apprehension on the part of the petitioners that their children stood no chance to get themselves nominated if the selections were to be made in accordance with the norms contained in Ext. P-2 'Rules for selection' that the writ petition was brought. Subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners having come to know that additional respondents 3 to 6 had actually been selected by the 1st respondent for nomination, they too were impleaded as per the order on C. M. P. No. 13684 of 1980. At the time of final hearing of the writ petition Sri p. K. Balasubramoniam the counsel for additional respondents 3 to 6, submitted that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief as against additional respondents 3 to 6 inasmuch as the year with reference to which the petitioners' children had applied for seats had already expired, and the admission of additional respondents 3 to 6 to the colleges concerned had become a fait accompli. Mrs. Usha Sukumaran, the counsel for the petitioners, however, drew our attention to the fact that the main relief sought in the writ petition was a declaration that the provisions of Ext. P-2, particularly Clause 1 (iii) (a) therefore, are illegal and unconstitutional. According to her submission, if this Court declines to examine the validity of the impugned clause in Ext. P-2, it would only tend to perpetuate an injustice, by unequal treatment to which the petitioners' children had already been subjected. In the light of this submission, we feel persuaded to consider the question whether Ext. P -2 is invalid, though our pronouncement on that question might not affect the right of additional respondents 3 to 6 to continue their studies on the basis of the selection made for the year 1980-81.

(2.) From the pleadings of the petitioners it has to be inferred that they were, at the time of filing the writ petition, under the impression that Ext. P-2 was issued by the 1st respondent in violation of the guidelines given by the 2nd respondent, the Union of India, in their communication dated 21-3-1980, a true copy of which is Ext. P-1, thereby implying that Ext. P-2 was issued subsequent to the issue of Ext. P-1. Curiously, what is produced as Ext. P-2 does not bear any date. Ext. P-1 letter addressed by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent begins with an observation that certain instances where some of the allottee agencies had not followed the relevant instructions issued by the Government of India while selecting and nominating candidates against the seats allotted to them had been noticed; it then proceeds, in paragraphs 2 to 4, to lay down the norms to be followed by the allottee agencies. To facilitate easy reference we are extracting those paragraphs hereunder: "2. "It is once again reiterated that only the children of (i) permanent residents of the State/U.T. concerned (ii) the employees of the State/U.T. Government concerned, (iii) the employees of the Central/Other/State/U.T. Government on deputation to the State/U. T. concerned and (iv) the employees of the Central/other State/U.T. Government posted in and having their headquarter within the State/U.T. concerned will be eligible.

(3.) The children of State/Central U. T. government employees, as aforesaid should be treated at par with the local resident. The sole criteria for selection will be academic merit of the candidates, subject to any special orders issued with the concurrence of the Government of India.