Bharathi vs The Secretary to Government Health and Family Welfare Department and The Secretary Selection Committee Selection Committee

D. Murugesan, J.—The Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Clause 8.1(f) of the prospectus issued for admission of candidates to

Tamil Nadu Professional Courses Medical/Dental/ Paramedical 2000-2001 in so far as it insists the students that they should have studied both +1

and +2 in schools located in village panchayat and direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner with application in E.E. No. 9532654 for

admission in the first year M.B.B.S. course for the year 2000-2001 from the 15% of the seats reserved for rural students.

The Petitioner studied from 6th standard to 10th standard and +2 at Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Pala code .The said school

comes under rural category as notified by the Government and the students studied in the said school are eligible to apply for admission under 15%

of the seats reserved for candidates who have studied in schools situated in rural areas. Due to ill-health the Petitioner studied +1 course at

Avvaiyar Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Dharmapuri. The said school does not fall under the rural category of schools as per the

notification.

The Petitioner applied for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. degree course for the year 2000-2001 as against the 15% of seats reserved for

candidates from schools situated in the rural area as notified by the Government. The application of the Petitioner was rejected on the ground that

the Petitioner did not study her +1 course also in the school situated in rural area and therefore the Petitioner was constrained to file writ petition

seeking for a direction to consider the Petitioner''s application for M.B.B.S. degree course on the ground that the Petitioner is eligible to be

considered with reference to her study in +1 course in Avvaiyar Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Dharmapuri. When the writ petition

was pending, the Petitioner took out an application in W.M.P. Nos. 563 and 564 of 2001 for raising additional grounds and for amendment of the

prayer by challenging Clause 8.1 (f) of the prospectus and the said petition was ordered by this Court on 23.1.2001.

Mr. C. Selvaraju, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that when the Government reserved 15% of the seats to the

candidates studied in schools located in the rural areas notified by the Government, the condition imposed in the prospectus that students who have

studied in such schools both in +1 and +2 are alone eligible is not in tune with the object of the reservation when the marks obtained by the

candidates in +2 examination are alone is taken into consideration for admission. For the purpose of admission, the Respondents ought not to have

imposed such a condition in Clause 8.1 (f) of the prospectus issued for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. medical/dental/paramedical courses

for the academic year 2000-2001. Therefore, the Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitioner who has admittedly undergone +2 course in a

school located in the rural area notified by the Government should be also considered as against the 15% of the seats reserved for such students.

Mr. M. Rathinam, learned Additional Government Pleader on the other hand would contend that the Petitioner applied for admission as against

the 15% of the seats and after having come to know that he was not selected, cannot challenge the conditions prescribed in the prospectus. The

learned Additional Government Pleader would further contend that as per the educational qualification for admission to M.B.B.S. degree course,

candidates should have passed higher secondary certificate (academic) examinations conducted by the Tamil Nadu Higher Secondary State

Board. The 15% of the seats reserved for candidates studied in the schools located in the rural area as notified by the Government is a concession

given by the Government by virtue of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India and therefore when such concessions are made, it is open to the

Government to prescribe such of those norms to make the candidates eligible to apply as against the 15% seats and therefore the Petitioner has no

right in challenging the eligibility norms prescribed by the Government under Clause 8.1 (f) of the prospectus. Therefore, the learned Additional

Government Pleader submitted that the writ petition is liable to be rejected.

By virtue of the powers conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, the Government issue orders containing the eligibility, age limit,

qualification and other norms for the candidates to apply for admission to the medical/dental/paramedical courses. By virtue of the said power, the

Government have issued notification which are later issued in the form of a prospectus by the Director of Medical Education, Government of Tamil

Nadu. While issuing such notification, the Government direct the admissions to be made following the rule of reservation. The said rule of

reservation would fall under Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India. However, the Government also direct certain seats to be filled up from

among special categories. Similarly, the Government also have reserved 15% of the total number of seats from the candidates studied in the

schools located in rural area as per the notification issued by the Government in this behalf. The said 15% reservation is made under Article 15(4)

of the Constitution of India. When the Government grants certain concession to the students in admissions, it can impose such of those norms as

the Government satisfy itself for the purpose of the candidates to become eligible to apply under those reserved seats. The Higher Secondary

Course consists of+1 and +2. Therefore, the Government thought it fit to impose the condition that the students who have studied + 1 and +2

course in the schools located in rural area are alone eligible to apply as against the 15% seats reserved and such a condition cannot be in my view

considered as illegal or taking away the rights of the students like the Petitioners who have not undergone the course in both +1 and +2 in the

schools located in rural area. Moreover, the Petitioner on the basis of the prospectus had applied for admission to the course and having come to

know that the Petitioner was not selected, has now resorted to challenge the Clause 8.1 (f) of the prospectus. As already referred, the norms

prescribed in the said clause imposing a condition on the students applying as against the 15% of the seats reserved for those candidates by the

Government by way of concession cannot be in any way claimed as a matter of right, as against a right to the candidates to claim a seat under the

rule of reservation. It is further to be noticed that such a notification reserving 15% of the seats even if it is withdrawn by the Government,

candidates cannot make any grievance over such withdrawal since the reservation of seats itself is only by way of concession and when the

Government decides to withdraw such concession, it can do so. Therefore, in the absence of any right on the Petitioner, the Petitioner cannot

challenge the eligibility norms prescribed in Clause 8.1 (f) of the prospectus.

In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition in challenging Clause 8.1(f) of the prospectus. Accordingly, the writ petition

fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.