M MALARVIZHI Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Dakshayani Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a direction against the respondents to give the vacancy in the Super Specialty course for the year 2009-2010 arisen under the service category because of the move of Dr. Senthil Kumar, the first candidate under the service category to the open category due to the non joining of Dr. Rajarajan under the open category in the Super Specialty course for the year 2009-2012 to the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate on instructions submitted that it is true as per the Clause 45(a), but, however, the writ petition is premature in the sense that the candidates are given time till 30th September, 2009 for completion of the counseling. On that date only it will be known as to whether the second counseling should be conducted or not. It is only on 30.9.2009, the position will be identified and in that event, if the second person in the open merit list has not joined, the fifth person, who is the service candidate will move, in which event, the person in the fifth place will move to the fourth place and in that case, the petitioner will be considered. It is made clear that in the event of conducting of second counseling due to non joining of the non-service candidate, for filling up the said place, clause 45(a) of the prospectus will be followed and the petitioner will be considered.