A V GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. BYJU N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals arising out of the common judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in OP Nos. 15161, 16193, 18305, 18751 and 20433 of 1997. Writ Appeals Nos. 526, 568, 574, 653 and 871 of 1998 are the writ appeals filed by the State Government as well as the Director of Medical Education jointly, challenging the judgment in all the five original petitions. The appellants in writ appeals Nos. 264, 293, 307, 312, 379 and 553 of 1998 were eventhough not originally parties to the writ petitions got themselves impleaded in the writ petitions and the impugned judgment was passed after hearing them. Writ Appeals Nos. 234, 242, 325, 326, 398, 540 and 603 of 1998 are filed with leave by persons who were not parties to the original petitions. The leave to file appeal was granted to them as their rights are also affected.

(2.) Eventhough facts are same and appeals are filed challenging the same common judgment, for convenience we are referring to exhibits in WA No.234 of 1998 filed from OP No. 15161 of 1997. The original petitions were filed by M.B.B.S. Graduates who had written entrance examination conducted for selection to various Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma courses, held in June, 1997. In the results of the entrance examination they were ranked. Therefore, petitioners are candidates belonging to general merit quota. In the Prospectus clause VII deals with reservation of scats among service candidates. The eligibility for service quota are described in clause VII (b). Clause VII deals with reservation of seats among service candidates for four categories. They are :

(3.) The learned single Judge in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, 1980 (2) SCC 768 ; Mohan Beer Singh Chawla v. Punjab University, ( AIR 1997 SC 788 ); Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477 ); Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, 1984 (3) SCC 654 ; Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad 1986 (3) SCC 727 ) and in M. R. Balaji v. The State of Mysore, AIR 1963 SC 649 held that it is not enough that considering the seats given to All India Quota there will be 50% available to the general merit candidates, but 50% seats of the total State quota should be given to the merit candidates. Later it was also noticed by the learned single Judge that since after admission of the writ petitions further general merit quota candidates were admitted, 50% seats were actually filled up by merit candidates. The learned Judge held as follows :