K SUGANTHI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner by name K.Suganthi is the appellant herein. She filed the Writ Petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order,directing the respondents to give effect to the results published by the Selection Committee by admitting her to the first year M.B.B.S. Course, 1982-83. The appellant, after completing her B.Sc, degree course, applied to the medical college in the State of Tamil Nadu to get admission into the first year M.B.B.S.course. In the selection made, she was selected and the same was communicated to her and was also published in local dailies and in the college notice board. On the date of the application, the appellant was admittedly studying in the engineering course in Coimbatore and she has also undergone six months course in Engineering (first semester). The prospectus clearly lays down the guidelines and eligibility for admission to the M.B.B.S. course and clause 7(1) of the prospectus cleariy states that candidates who have already undergone professional course for the first semester (six months) in Agriculture, Veternary, B.D.S., B.Pharm., Engineering etc., and those who had failed three times in the first year M.B.B.S., course are not eligible to apply for admission to M.B.B.S.course. Immediately after the intimation and publication of the results of selection of the appellant to the M.B.B.S. course for 1982-83, the Secretary, Selection Committee has sent a telegram dated 28-8-1982 intimating the appellant that her selection has been withheld since she has undergone six months engineering course and asking her to clarify. Aggrieved by this attitude of the Respondents, the appellant has come forward with the present writ petition for directing the authorities to give effect to the results published and admit the appellant in the first year M.B.B.S. course for 1982-83. The respond--ents, in their counter, have specifically averred the purport of clause 7(1) of the prospectus and stated that they have correctly refused admission to the appellants The learned single Judge of this Court, after holding that clause 7 of the prospectus is intra vires the Constitution and that there is no question of estoppel as such in this case to restrain the respondents from giving effect to clause 7(1) of the prospectus, dismissed the writ petition. It is as against this order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.

(2.) Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that a clear discrimination is being made between the candidates who have joined the professional course already and those who apply for the first time to the medical course and as such, clause 7(1) of the prospectus clearly offends Article 14 of the Constitution. He further submitted that there is no nexus between the clause inserted and the object sought to be achieved by the authorities concerned.He also submitted that the respondents are estopped from denying a seat to the appellant in M.B.B.S. course.

(3.) Mr.Sadanand, learned Government Advocate on record submitted that there is clear nexus for the objects sought to be achieved as far as the introduction of clause 7(1) in the prospectus is concerned and that there cannot be any estoppel as such since the appellant has not been put to any loss or prejudice by the refusal of admission in the first year M.B.B.S. course.