Y KAVITHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN W. P. No. 11967 of 1995 and the petitioner, who was not successful and could not secure admission in the first Year M. B. B. S. Course under Special Category 15 for the academic year 1995-96 has filed the present writ Petition, seeking for the issue of a Writ of Madamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner herein in the first year M. B. B. S. Course in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu under the special category 15 for the academic year 1995-96.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he was born out of inter-caste marriage. The petitioner's father belong to pallan Community (SC) and mother belong to Backward Class Community. The petitioner sought for admission under the special category of seats reserved for the children born out of inter-caste marriage. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the candidates who have secured marks less than the petitioner had been admitted to the first year M. B. B. S. Course and his non-selection is illegal. The petitioner contends that the admission of all the candidates under this category falling under Clause (a) is illegal and discriminatory. Counter has been filed by the respondents. There is no controversy as to the marks scored by the Writ Petitioner in the academic examination as well as in the entrance examination and other particulars. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that 57 candidates applied for admission claiming to be the children born to parents belonging to SC/st and FC. Out of 57 candidates, the first 12 candidates were selected and admitted under the special category clause (a) of Clause 3. 5. (viii) of the prospectus. In view of the non-filling of some seats in other special categories, one seat was added to the above category taking the total to 13 and therefore, one more candidate was also admitted from the children born of inter-caste marriage between SC/st and FC. The Petitioner admittedly is a child born of inter-caste Marriage between SC and BC and he has secured 261. 58 out of 300. The petitioner stands in Sl. No. 7 in the merit list drawn for children born of inter-caste marriage between SC and BC. There is no scope for the selection committee to consider the applications received from the children born of inter-caste marriage between sc/st and BC and so on. It is also contended that preference ought not to have been offered to those falling under category Clause (a) and that would result in total deprivation of or exclusion of those falling under Clause (b ). It was contended that the said preference or selection of the candidates falling under clause (a) is vitiated and it is also violative of Article 15 of the constitution. In this respect, the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Indra Sawheny v. Union of India , A. I. R. 1993 SC 477. In this respect, the respondents contend that the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to this special category and it is also contended that the government is competent to earmark certain number of seats for the special categories identified by the Government and also competent to allot the seats in the order of preference.

(3.) THE very Clauses 3. 5 (viii) prescribes the Order of preference for selection of candidates who applied under this category. Preference has already been fixed in the prospectus itself. It is the specific case of the respondents that all the candidates selected during the year belong to the category (a) viz. , children born of inter-caste marriage between SC/st and F. C. As such, the petitioners cannot have any grievance and their claim if at all will fall under category (c) This preference prescribed in the prospectus has not been violated nor the preference provided for in the prospectus would be challenged at this stage. Both the Writ Petitioners have submitted their application claiming preference for the admission under the special category viz children born of inter-caste marriage. Before submitting their applications, they did not challenge the preference provided for in the prospectus. Only after submitting their applications and after being unsuccessful, they have come before this Court as an after thought. In this respect, my attention was drawn to the judgment of this Court reported in tanura v. Director of Medical Education, Madras , 1985 W. L. R. 354 wherein mainar Sundaraman, J. as he then was, applying the ratio laid down by the supreme Court in I. L. Honnegouda v. State of Kernataka , A. I. R. 1978 SC 28 has held thus:- ' THE prescriptions and the procedure were there in the prospectus itself. Knowing fully well that there are such prescriptions and procedure the petitioner applied for admission. After having acquiesced in the prescriptions and procedure and after having gone through the process of selection as per the same and now not having come out successful, it is not permissible for the petitioner to challenge the constitutional vires of the said prescriptions and procedure. This is a well settled principle counte renanced by the Highest Court in I. L. Honnegouda vs. State of Karnataka in the following terms:- ' . . THE facts that the appellant acquiesced to the 1970 Rules by applying for the post of the village Accountant, appearing before the Recruitment Committee for interview in 1972 and 1974 and taking a chance of being selected, the present appeal which questions the constitutionality of Rules 4 and 5 of the 1970 Rules cannot be allowed' This has been followed by pronouncements of this court. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the valuation has of the marks in the entrance examination has not been done properly and the petitioner ought to have been granted higher marks. This allegation cannot be taken note of because if taken note of, practically it will lead to counternancing a plea for revolution. This process has also been deprecated. This process has also by the Highest Court in the land-vide Maharashtra SB. O. S. & H. S. Education v. Parttosh. THEre is no allegation of malpractice, fraud or improper conduct, etc. , in the valuation in the entrance examination. In the said circumstances, this grievance also could nod be taken note of' . This view has been reiterated subsequently by the Apex court. That being the position, it follows that it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the preference provided for in the prospectus at this point of time.