M BHUVANESH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that the improvement marks obtained by them will not be taken into account for the purpose of admission to medical colleges since the prospectus for the MBBS BDS course shows that, 4 (i) Candidates should have passed in all the subjects of the qualifying examination of the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (Academic) conducted by the Tamil Nadu State Board in one and the same attempt in the following group of subjects with the minimum eligible marks. (a) Physics, Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. (or) (b) Physics, Chemistry, Biology with any other subjects. . . . Note: i) The Marks obtained in the qualifying examinations in the relevant science subjects in the first appearance only will be taken into consideration for the allotment of seats of candidates and the improvement marks in +2 examination of any year will not be considered. " according to them, when they wrote the improvement examination their original marks stood erased and therefore, now they will not have the benefit of either the original mark or the improvement mark and they would stand at a disadvantage. It was further submitted that for engineering college students the improvement mark is taken into account and there cannot be any discrimination between students applying for Engineering Courses and students applying for medical courses and also if the improvement mark is taken into account for engineering course, then each student will have two different aggregate of marks, one for the purpose of admission in the engineering college and other for the purpose of admission in the medical college. this would be totally irrational. It was also submitted that these students had genuinely believed that they can take advantage of the improvement marks and they had therefore, wasted an academic year in the hope that with the improvement marks they would be able to secure admission in the medical course. this is the sum and substance of the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) MRS. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 20963,18377, 18378 of 2006 and Mr. Kandavadivel Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W. P. No. 18228 of 2006 and Mr. S. Packiaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W. P. No. 20977 of 2006 would rely on the Judgment reported in S. Mohamed Razeen Vs. The Govt. of Tamil Nadu (2005 (3) CTC 449) to support their case.

(3.) THE learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that they are not entitled to any relief and that in fact, the same judgment which the petitioners rely on, clearly shows that for the academic year 2006-07, the improvement marks cannot be taken into account. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that when the Prospectus makes it clear that what is the criterion for admission to medical course, it is not for the petitioners to attack the same. The fact that There is a difference between the admission to medical college and admission to engineering college, will not make a difference to the conclusion since the seats for engineering college are many more than the seats that are available for a medical college. It was also submitted that the facility to allow students to write the improvement examination itself is granted an indulgence and not as a matter of right.