DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION CHENNAI Vs. V RAMALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 24.4.1997, insofar as it related to W.P.No.2317 of 1997, which came to be disposed along with two other writ petitions in common, where under the learned single Judge, while allowing the writ petition and declaring paragraph 4 in Clause (VI) of the Prospectus relating to the Admission to postgraduate Diploma/Degree M.D.S. Courses for the year 1997-98 unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India, directed the appellants, who are respondents in the writ petition, to proceed with the further selection insofar as it related to service candidates without taking into consideration the said paragraph. THE said paragraph, which was held to be bad by the learned single Judge, reads as follows:

(2.) THE respondent herein, the writ petitioner before the learned single Judge, is said to be a Medical Practitioner possessing a degree in M.B.B.S., obtained by her in July, 1989, that she was temporarily appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service on 28.5.1990 and she was selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and regularly appointed as such by a Government Order dated 26.4.1995. THE respondent is said to be on deputation working as Assistant Surgeon. Government Primary Health Centre, Sebathipuram. Without going into the details of the allegations or the correctness or otherwise of the same, it may be stated that charges containing allegations of misappropriation of public funds, based on some audit objections, and enquiry into those charges are pending against the respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel on either side invited our attention to some of the judicial pronouncements, to which a reference could be usefully made before considering the respective contentions of parties made before us, In Miss Sathya Rao v. University of Madras, (1977)2 M.L.J 403, a Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the legality as also the competency of the Syndicate of the University of Madras to prescribe the eligibility qualification to be admitted in to a course of study in the University of Madras, the challenge there being the prescription made of a particular percentage of marks to a candidate, who has undergone a ten year course in what is known as the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Examination, which is different from the percentage of pass marks fixed for pass or eligibility marks fixed for those who passed Secondary School Leaving Certificate examination after undergoing an eleven year school course. THE Division Bench was of the view that the stipulation could not be said to be extraneous or unconnected, but as a matter of fact, intimately connected with the education policy and therefore, the same cannot be held to be an unreasonable also.