BEENA GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a candidate for admission to M.D.S. Post Graduate Course in Dental Science for the year 1995-96. Petitioner's rank number was 26. As per the prospectus Ext. P1, 24 seats were made available for admission to Dental College. Petitioner's choice for the admission is M.D.S. in Oral Pathology and Micro Pathology for which two seats were allocated. Petitioner could not come within the rank list for admission to the course in the year 1995. After coming to know that vacancies have arise subsequently, the petitioner filed a representation dated 24-6-1996 before the Director of Medical Education requesting admission to the course based on the entrance examination of 1995. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the Government in their letter dated 9-12-1996. The Original Petition is filed against this order and for a direction to consider here request for admission in the 1995 batch.

(2.) The admission to the Post Graduate Course in Dental College is governed by the prospectus Ext. P1. As per the Clause.12 of the said prospectus, the validity of the select and wait list will be till the publication of the result of the entrance examination of the coming year. As far as 1995-96 selection is concerned, the petitioner was not selected and she has no grievance about her non selection in the year 1995. However, her case is that since some of the candidates have left after the entrance examination of 1996, in the resultant vacancy she may be considered. As per the prospectus, there is no valid list after the publication of 1996 entrance examination for considering the case of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Joint Director by notice dated 7-12-1996 called for interview for certain vacant seats of the 1995 batch. But the petitioner's choice of the course, namely, M.D.S. in Oral Pathology and Micro Pathology was not included as one of the items available for interview. Had the said course was included, the petitioner also would have appeared for interview and would have been considered for selection. In reply to the said specific contention, learned Government Pleader pointed out that the notification calling for the interview dated 7-12-1996 by the Joint Director was found to be not in order. He has set out the circumstances under which, in the case of one candidate Dr. Jayasree this court in O.P. 14238/96 considering the peculiar and special circumstances of the case, namely, that she was prevented from attending the interview on 23-7-1996 because the erratum was not published in the newspaper, she was directed to be interviewed. Taking advantage of such direction given in the case of one candidate granting extension for the validity of the list of 1995, the Joint Director suo motu called for the interview for the available vacancies of the year 1995. The Government considered this as improper and cancelled the selection made in pursuance to the interview held on 16-12-1996 in reference to all the candidates. Learned Government Pleader also pointed out that no candidate was admitted on the strength of Ext. P6. He has pointed out that the recommendation given by the Principal of the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram was declined by the 3rd respondent in view of the Government decision.