VANDANA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a candidate for admission to the 1st year MBBS Course in the Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram, Kannur. She has filed the above Original Petition to set aside the selection to MBBS Course held on 22.1.1996 by the 2nd respondent and to declare that the petitioner is eligible for admission to the said course pursuant to Ext. P1 notification issued by the 2nd respondent on 4.1.1996 and the subsequent selection.

(2.) Brief Facts : The 2nd respondent is running a private Medical College at Pariyaram. A notification dated 4.1.1996 was issued by the said administration for selection to the unfilled seats. The Supreme Court in T. M. A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka ( AIR 1995 SC 2431 ) issued directions for admission in reference to NRI/foreign students quota. As per this direction NRI quota is fixed at 15%. But in case if the management are not able to get the NRI or foreign students up to the said percentage, it shall be open to them to admit students oh their own, in the order of merit, within the said quota. This was directed to be considered as a general direction and it shall operate in the case of all the states where admissions have not been finalised. It is an admitted fact that as the 2nd respondent did not fill up all the 15 seats earmarked for NRI quota, a notification was issued by the 2nd respondent dt. 4.1.1996 inviting applications from eligible Indian resident candidates. According to the said notification the last date for receipt of the application was on 18.1.1996 and the applicants were to appear for an interview on 22.1.1996. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner applied within the time and appeared for the interview on 22.1.1996. On that day the 2nd respondent decided to conduct a written test along with the interview. The petitioner undertook the written test as well as the interview. But the petitioner was not selected.

(3.) Petitioner's case: According to the petitioner, the test, conducted without any prior intimation to the candidate at the time of interview which was contrary to the notification, was only a method by which the 2nd respondent wanted to admit their own candidates and to eliminate the persons like the petitioner who have obtained very high marks in the qualifying examination. The petitioner has specifically averred that the petitioner would have scored the highest mark in the written examination compared to other candidates who were selected under the pretext of NRI candidates. The petitioner further stated that the selected candidates have obtained lesser marks than the petitioner and that it is a clear mala fide action on the part of the 2nd respondent. The selection of 10 candidates alleged to have belonged to NRI category after having opened it for all is discriminatory under Art.14 of the Constitution of India since Ext. P1 notification intended only to Indian residents. No evaluation was done for those 10 alleged NRI students with the petitioner. Hence the whole selection is illegal.