S GOMATHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the Original Petitions are filed challenging the Government Order (Ext.P2 in O.P. No. 4532/96, and Ext. P3 in O.P. No. 4584/96) amending the prospectus for admission to the Post Graduate Course in superspeciality, 1995.

(2.) The Director of Medical Education, Government of Kerala, issued a notification on 13-11-1995 for the admission to Post Graduate Course in super speciality in the Medical Colleges in Kerala. The prospectus for the said course was also issued in Nov. 1995. As per this prospectus there are 10 courses with 39 seats in the three Medical Colleges of the State. The eligibility for admission is that the candidates should have passed MBBS, and appropriate Post Graduate Degree (M.D/M.S.). The method of selection is by an entrance examination consisting of two parts each containing objective type questions. In pursuance to this prospectus applications were invited and entrance examinations were held on 13th and 14th January 1996. The petitioners as well as members of the 3rd respondent association applied and appeared for the entrance examination. The results of the examination were published on 25-1-1996. The petitioners in both these O.Ps. were in the select list for D.M. Nephrology and M.Ch. Genito Urinary Surgery respectively. While the petitioners were awaiting to join the course, the Government passed the impugned order amending the prospectus in exercise of the power conferred on them under clause XII of the prospectus issued earlier. As per this amended prospectus, Government reserved certain seats for Lecturers/Assistant Professors in the concerned specialities for which selection would be made on the basis of seniority in service. The said Government Order is now under challenge.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners M/s. C.S. Rajan and K.R.B. Kaimal submitted that the rights of the petitioners have accrued by virtue of the selection to the course and the same cannot be taken away by a subsequent amendment. The members of the 3rd respondent have applied and appeared for written test and failed in the selection and after the selection having been finalised they are not entitled to seek for a reversal of the Government Order to re-open the selection. The selection has to be based on the conditions stipulated in the notification and in the prospectus which cannot be altered after selection process having completed, retrospectively. The Government having taken up a clear stand to the effect that they are bound by the Supreme Court judgments in reference to super speciality cannot go back in disobedience to the decision of the Supreme Court and their earlier stand. The Government, according to them, has passed an order behind their back without affording an opportunity to the petitioners and total disregard and violation of the principles of a natural justice. They also submit that there is no right in favour of the 3rd respondent to seek for a reservation.