MANJU JOSEPH Vs. SREEJA RANI T. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the 6th respondent in WP(C) No. 28859/15 challenging judgment dated 9/10/2015 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein setting aside Ext.P5.

(2.) BY Ext.P5, the Government had issued an order on 31/7/2015 permitting the appellant to participate in the selection for the Post Graduate Course in Ayurveda under the service quota for the academic year 2015 -16. The 1st respondent herein by filing the writ petition challenged Ext.P5 inter alia contending that after issuing the prospectus, which is produced as Ext.P2, no power is available enabling the Government to issue an order in the form of Ext.P5 especially when clause (vii) of the note which forms part of Clause 3 clearly indicates that the service quota candidate should join the course to which they are selected in a particular academic year and if they do not join the course or discontinue the course, they will not be considered for selection to the Post Graduate Course under service quota in future. It is contended that the appellant herein was selected under the service quota for Post Graduate Course during 2013 -14. She was allotted a seat in terms of Ext.P3. However, she did not join the course and she discontinued. In the year 2014 -15 also, she applied and her name was included in the select list. However, in view of the disqualification in terms of Clause (vii) of the note which forms part of Clause 3, another candidate objected to the inclusion of the appellant in the list of 2014 -15 and accordingly, her candidature was rejected during interview. It is in the said circumstances that Ext.P5 came to be issued on 31/7/2015 which according to the 1st respondent was clearly arbitrary and illegal and totally contrary to the settled law.

(3.) LEARNED Single Judge after considering the factual circumstances involved in the case allowed the writ petition setting aside Ext.P5 on the ground that once the prospectus contains a clause which prevents a candidate who had obtained admission earlier from participating in the next selection process, it was not possible for the Government to accede to the request of the appellant. It is observed that when a provision is made for forfeiture of the seat, Ext.P5 could not have been issued by the Government. However, it was made clear that to take care of such situations, it is possible for the Government to amend the prospectus in future.