PRASANTH V.K. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, FOR ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE MEDICAL COURSES, 2015 AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the non -consideration of the petitioner as a Socially and Educationally Backward Class [for brevity "SEBC"] candidate in the entrance examination for post -graduate medical courses [for brevity "PG Medical course"] conducted by the State for the academic year 2015 -16. The petitioner is an in -service candidate and had made an application for the entrance examination as an in -service candidate and allegedly as a SEBC candidate also. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had produced the certificates claiming the benefit as an in -service candidate; as also a SEBC candidate. The petitioner was very much aware that he would be entitled to be considered only under one category, since the benefit to each of these categories was a relaxation in the minimum requirement of marks by 10%.

(2.) THE relaxation to the in -service candidates was interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment dated 12.01.2015 in C.A. Nos. 297 and 298 of 2015. In such circumstance, noticing the fact that sufficient number of in -service candidates would not be available for allotment, the Government took away the negative marking system, by a Government Order dated 03.02.2015. Hence, the candidates were aware of the fact that there would be no relaxation of minimum requirement for in -service candidates.

(3.) THE certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application though is not available in the records, the petitioner asserts that it is similar to Exhibit P6, which the petitioner had obtained later and produced along with the complaint dated 09.03.2015, produced at Exhibit P5. The petitioner contends that he ought to have been considered by the 1st respondent under the category of "SEBC candidate" and in that event, he would have crossed the threshold eligibility, since he has obtained 44% marks in the entrance examination. Admittedly the minimum requirement for general candidates was 50% and for SEBC candidates it was 40% with relaxation of 10%. The petitioner also contends that one another candidate belonging to the same community of the petitioner, who had less marks, is shown as qualified.