AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Srinivasan, J.—These Two Writ Petitions relate to the admission of the petitioners in the course of Diploma in Pharmacy for the Academic
Year 1989-90. The direction sought is to admit the petitioners to that course. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued a prospectus for the Diploma
in Pharmacy course in Madurai Medical College for the year 1989-90. Under Column 6 the last date for receipt of application was mentioned as
27-7-1989. Column 10 mentioned that the total number of seats available to the College was 120 as approved by Pharmacy Council of India.
Special reservations were indicated in that column. 120 seats were reserved for children/wards of TN Chemists & Druggists, It appears that there
was a Government Order governing the reservations made as early as in 1977 in G.O. Ms. No. 1740, Health, dt. 1-8-1977. Under column 14 the
candidates who applied for the course against the seats reserved for the children/wards of Chemists and Druggists should obtain a certificate in the
Form from the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Chemists and Druggists Association, Madras with their office seal.
Accordingly, the petitioners, who are indisputably the children of Chemists, riled applications for seats for the course of Diploma in Pharmacy
with the necessary certificates. There is no dispute that the petitioners sent their applications well in time and that they were accompanied by the
requisite certificates.
The petitioners found that they were not selected, but on an inquiry learnt that the reservation mentioned in the prospectus was not adopted for
the purpose of selection. It was also learnt by the petitioner in W.P. No. 646 of 1990 that there was a Government Order in letter No.
106026/FE/3/88-4, dt. 2-8-1989 cancelling the reservation of twenty seats.
Thereafter the petitioners filed the writ petitions. While the petition in W.P. No. 16183 of 1989 is for issue of mandamus only, the other petition
prays for issue of certiorarified mandamus for quashing the letter No. 106026/FE-3/88-4, dt. 2-8-1989 referred to above and for issue of
consequential, mandamus.
The contentions of the petitioners in short is that even assuming that the Government has got power to cancel the reservation made under a prior
Government Order, such cancellation has to be only prospective and it cannot be retrospective. The plea of promissory estoppel is raised by the
petitioners herein. It is their contention that but for the representation in the prospectus about the reservation of 20 seats, they would not have
applied for this course and that they might have applied for some other course taking their chance elsewhere. As a matter of law it is their
contention that there cannot be a retrospective cancellation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 16183 of 1989 also contends that a
Government Order cannot be cancelled by a letter issued by a Government official. It is not necessary to go into other contentions raised by
Learned Counsel for the petitioners in these cases. I do not accept the contention that the cancellation of Government Order cannot be made by a
Government Letter. In the circumstances of the case, the letter is also an order passed by the Government though it is expressed in the form of a
letter.
However, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that there cannot be a cancellation retrospectively. It is certainly open to the
Government to cancel the reservation as it is not based upon any provision in the Constitution of India or any other legislation. It is the reservation
which was brought about by the Government only by its own order. Yet so long as the reservation is in force, the Government will be bound by it.
Based on that, the prospectus was issued and an express representation was made to the persons concerned including the petitioners that there will
be reservation of 20 seats for the children/wards of TN Chemists and Druggists. On the strength of the said representation, the petitioners had sent
their applications. It cannot be said that even if the representation was not there, they would have certainly applied for this course and not tried
their chance for other courses.
The cancellation of the reservation can only be prospective. When the Government has chosen to cancel the reservation in August, 1989 by
which date the last date for receipt of applications for the course from the candidates had already expired, the only course open to the Government
was to cancel it for the next academic year 1990-91 and not for the current academic year 1989-90. Hence the application of the petitioners and
other children of TN Chemists and Druggists similarly placed should have been considered on the basis of the statement in the prospectus relating
to reservation of 20 seats. It is a different matter whether the petitioners would get their seats within the quota of 20 of seats or not. But
respondents 1 to 3 are bound to consider the applications for that quota of reservation and decide whether the petitioners were entitled to be
selected.
In the circumstances, the order of cancellation made by the Government letter No. 106026/FE-3/88-4, dated 2-8-1989 is quashed with
reference to 1989-90. Consequently the failure of respondents 1 to 3 to carry out the representations made by them in the prospectus by making a
reservation of 20 seats is untenable and the Government ought to consider the applications on the basis of reservation. Though there is a specific
allegation in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions that there are still vacancies, that has not been denied expressly by the Government in
its counter. Even if there is no vacancy, the Government should consider not only the applications by the petitioner herein but also the applications
of the other children of T.N. Chemists and Druggists. They should consider the applications as against the quota of reservation and decide which
20 of them should be selected for joining the course. If necessary, the Government may increase the number of seats in the College or they shall
make any other provision for accommodating the children of T.N. Chemists and Druggists who are selected after such consideration.
The respondents 1 to 3 herein are directed to complete the selection on the basis of reservation on or before 15-3-1990, and intimate the
results to the persons concerned by general notice or individual notices.
It is only such applications as have been received by the Dean, Madurai Medical College before the date specified in the Prospectus i.e. 27-7-
1989 which shall be considered and it is not necessary for the respondents 1 to 3 to consider any other applications. Learned Additional
Government Pleader brings to my notice that the 4th Respondent in W.P. No. 16183 of 1989 had himself filtered certain applications and
forwarded only some of the application given by the children of T.N. Chemists and Druggists. If he had done so, it is a matter for taking action by
the concerned applicants as against the 4th Respondent if they are aggrieved. Respondents 1 to 3 are not in any way responsible for the action
taken by the 4th Respondent whether it is valid or not. The respondents 1 to 3 are concerned only with the applications which have been received
by the Dean of Madurai Medical College before the specified date.
In column 14 of the prospectus it is stated in unequivocal terms that the applications by the persons like the petitioners shall contain on the top
of the application the following inscriptions in red ink.
Application for seats reserved for Children-Wards of Chemists and Druggists of Tamil Nadu
Respondents 1 to 3 shall take up for consideration only such applications and decide whether they are entitled to get seats under the reservation
quota. Respondents 1 to 3 need not consider any other applications as under Column. 14, they are entitled to reject the other applications which
do not contain such inscriptions.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed and the letter No. 106026/FE-3/88-4, dt. 2-8-1989 is quashed, so far as the academic year 1989-90
is concerned. The Government Letter is valid for the academic year 1990-91 and future years. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the
applications of the petitioners herein and other persons similarly placed in accordance with the terms already mentioned and pass appropriate
orders with regard to their selection. There will be no order as to costs.