K JAYANTHI Vs. G A RAJAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition is filed for the alleged disobedience of the order passed by this court in W.P.No.18982 of 2007, dated 21.1.2008. By the aforesaid order, this Court had directed the third respondent to admit the petitioner in M.D.(Siddha) Course in the Government Siddha Medical College at Palayamkottai for the year 2007-2008. It is on disobedience of the order of this court, the contempt petitioner came to be filed.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up on 09.04.2008, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to get instruction from the respondent. On 30.4.2008, this court also directed one seat for M.D.(Siddha) course to be kept vacant under the Central Pool.

(3.) IT was also stated that as per the prospectus of the Government of India issued for the year 2007-2008, it is the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare was the sole selecting authority for selecting candidates under the special category. As per the latest guidelines of the Government of India, the petitioner was not eligible to seek admission under the Government of India nominee as she had not appeared for the entrance examination conducted by the Department. The judgment of this Court had been received only at the end of the academic year 2007-2008 after the cut off date prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University for admission to M.D. (Siddha) course was over on 31.5.2007. Even if the petitioner was admitted after January, 2008, she could not have secured minimum attendance for writing the examination and that no special class can be conducted only for the petitioner. Therefore, it was stated that the failure to implement the order of this court is due to administrative reason and not because of any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. If the petitioner wants to apply afresh for the M.D. (Siddha) Course for the year 2011-12, she can be considered provided she writes entrance examination with proper nomination of the Government of India. The respondent has also submitted an unconditional apology.