RAHUL RAVIND Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANJULA Chellur, Ag.C.J. WA 315/2012 is filed challenging an order dated 22.2.2012 refusing an interim relief in W.P.No. 4279/2012, by the learned single Judge.

(2.) THE Writ Petition came to be filed by the petitioner challenging Ex.P3 an order issued by the State Government, alleging the same as contrary to the stipulation contained in clause 9 of Ex.P1 Prospectus.THE appellant appeared for Common Entrance Examination for admission to Post Graduate Medical Course in the State. In Ex.P3, the State Government had given concession or relaxation to service quota candidates sofaras negative marks, hence it is contended that Ex.P3 is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and sought for quashing the same. As the learned Single Judge refused interim relief of staying the operation of Ex.P3, appellant filed this appeal. All are required to appear for Common Entrance Examination and only those candidates securing minimum of 50 marks at the examination would be eligible for admission process. This condition was stipulated and implemented at the instance of the 4th Respondent Medical Council of India (for short MCI). As Ex.P3 has no prior approval of the 4th respondent, the withdrawal of negative marking for in-service candidates is contended, against the regulations prescribed by the MCI. According to the petitioner it is nothing but a move to facilitate certain candidates in service to secure Post Graduation Seats. THErefore, the action in issuing Ex. P3 is highly motivated and the move is nothing but a malafide one. THEre is no provision for bifurcation of allotment of seats between service quota candidates and non-service quota candidates so far as the 4th Respondent is concerned. On the face of it Ex.P3 has no nexus with the object of the selection process as there is no basis for granting such relaxation, is the contention of the petitioner. At no point of time such relaxation was conceived by this Court. It is nothing but abuse of power by the 1st Respondent State and cannot be a policy which could have positive results is the stand of the petitioner. If Ex.P3 is given effect to, it would lead to two categories of candidates, one who gets admission with negative marks with rules applicable and the other who gets admission with out negative marks. With these averments, he seeks for the following reliefs:

(3.) DURING the course of pendency of this petition, several similarly situated persons got impleaded and so far as the service of writ petition, the petitioner was allowed to take notice by paper publication indicating the date of appearance as 02.04.2012 by filing an application I.A.No.4542/2012 so as to see that in case the writ petition is allowed, the affected candidates are put on notice.