JAYANTH V KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the writ petition is to quash the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (Amended upto December, 2010) insofar as Clause 9(2) is concerned and the consequential Clause 46(a) of the Prospectus issued by the Secretary, Selection Committee and direct the respondents to consider the admission of the petitioner bearing entrance examination No.41024 in M.Ch (Vascular Surgery) in the vacant seat, now available according to the merits.

(2.) DURING the course of the arguments the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he is not pressing the prayer as such and the petitioner is restricting the prayer to quash Clause 46(a) of the prospectus issued by the Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education and direct the respondents to consider admission of the petitioner bearing entrance examination No.41024 in M.Ch (Vascular Surgery). A memo is also filed on behalf of the petitioner on 10.11.2011. The said submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner followed by the memo dated 10.11.2011 is recorded and this writ petition is disposed of based on the above said submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the memo filed.

(3.) THE grounds raised in the writ petition are that Clause 46(a) of the Prospectus is contrary to the MCI Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (amended upto December, 2010); that when seats are available, keeping the seat as vacant merely because the candidate has not secured any mark under the category of marks allotted to experience i.e, one mark for one year to the maximum of 10 marks, is not in connection with merit; that the eligibility fixed by the MCI being 50% of the entrance mark, the State Government cannot add ten marks for experience and fixing minimum eligibility as 50 marks out of 100 is in violation of the MCI Regulations; that the petitioner having secured 48.75 marks out of 90 in the entrance examination, he is fully eligible as he is having more than 50% of the marks in the entrance examination; that the petitioner having not obtained any mark under the category of experience, he cannot be denied seat in M.Ch course in spite of non-availability of candidate having higher marks; that denial of seat to the petitioner in spite of he satisfying the MCI Regulation is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India; and that, the petitioner cannot be denied his right to challenge the clause in the prospectus merely because he has appeared and taken part in the selection process on the ground of Doctrine of Acquiescence. Petitioner has placed reliance on certain decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court.