R RAVINDRAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the writ petitions are filed challenging Clause-19 contained in the Prospectus issued by the respondents for the academic year 2003-04 for the PG courses for degree/diploma/five years neuro surgery/M.D.S. Courses and to declare the same as null and void.

(2.) Clause-19 of the Prospectus for Post Graduate Degree/Diploma/5 year M.Ch.,(Neuro Surgery) Courses for the year 2003-2004, which is challenged in these writ petitions reads as under:-

(3.) In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the clause-19 of the Prospectus for the year 2003-04 on the ground that by the operation of clause 19, they are disentitled to apply for admission to P.G. courses. According to them, clause 19 is arbitrary and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. It is stated that the clause-19 is retrospective in operation and it has taken away the petitioners' vested right. It is also stated that clause-19 is also violative of principles of natural justice and violative of the principle of legitimate expectation. Their main case is that the relevant clause that existed in the prospectus prior to 2003-04 imposed a ban from joining any discipline in post-graduate degree or diploma course only in cases where the candidates who had undergone the postgraduate course discontinued the course after a period of six months from the date of joining the course, but the present clause, irrespective of the period of study before discontinuance, makes the candidates ineligible to apply for a period of two years from the date of discontinuing the course. Their case is that though the clause provides that the ban will be for a period of two years, effectively the ban will be in force for a period of three years and the respondents have introduced the clause without application of mind and without any distinction or classification between the persons who discontinued the course two years prior to 2001 and the persons who discontinued the course after 2001. It is also urged that the clause has been introduced without taking into account the difference between the persons who left the course because of employment in Government service and others.