K P MANIMARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am of the view that it will be appropriate to begin the judgment with the following observation made by R.C.Lahoti,J. in STATE OF M.P. v. GOPAL D. TIRTHANI (2003) 9 ILD 13 (SC):-

(2.) The admission to professional courses is an annual feature and equally, challenge to the admission in most of the courses, particularly the medical courses and more particularly in P.G. medical courses has become an annual feature, with the result, almost every year several writ petitions are filed on the file of this Court challenging the mode of admission, and several clauses contained in the prospectus issued by the authorities are challenged. Though this Court has upheld some of the rules and struck down some other rules, I find that there is a constant tinkering of the clauses contained in the prospectus issued for each year leading to great uncertainty in each year's admission in professional courses. I am of the view, it will be better if a consistent policy is adopted by the State at least for a minimum period of five years, whatever may be the provocation for amendment of the clauses contained in the prospectus to avoid uncertainty in admissions.

(3.) The clauses under challenge in the above writ petitions are clauses-21 and 23 of the prospectus issued for Postgraduate Degree/Diploma/5 year M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery) Courses for the academic year 2003-2004 and the clauses read as under:-