S. Priya vs The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of Health and Family Welfare and The Secretary of Selection Committee Directorate of Medical Education

M. Jaichandren, J.—These Writ Appeals are arising out of the common order passed by the learned Single Judge, dated 03.10.2013, in

W.P. (MD) Nos. 16334 and 16335 of 2013, and therefore, a common judgment is being passed in these writ appeals. Heard the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants, as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

The present Appeals have been filed by the appellants, who were the petitioners in W.P. (MD) Nos. 16334 and 16335 of 2013, respectively.

The petitioners in the said writ petitions, the appellants herein, had filed the writ petitions, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue writs of

Mandamus, directing the Secretary, Selection Committee, Directorate of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai, the second respondent therein, to

conduct counseling for the petitioners, for the Diploma in Nursing course, for the 2013-2014 session, as per the prospectus issued by the second

respondent and the merit list issued by him.

The learned Single Judge, in his order, dated 03.10.2013, had dismissed the writ petitions stating that the petitioners had approached this Court,

belatedly, after the admissions were over and as all the candidates had joined in the respective colleges, after the selection process had been

completed. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for, by the petitioners, in the writ petitions, cannot be granted, on the ground of laches. As such, the writ

petitions, filed by the petitioners, had been dismissed.

The appellants herein have filed the present appeals stating, inter alia, that the learned Single Judge ought to have set aside the entire selection

process, after holding that it was erroneous and illegal. The learned Single Judge ought to have directed the second respondent to initiate the

process of re-selection, after including the Plus Two Nursing Vocational candidates. Even though the learned Single Judge had directed the

respondents to select and admit some of the candidates, who had approached this Court, earlier, he had passed the present order, dismissing the

writ petitions, by fixing the cut-off date, for the admission of the candidates, as 30.09.2013. The dismissal of the writ petitions, filed by the

petitioners, the appellants in the present appeals, who are similarly placed like that of the candidates, who had been directed to be selected and

admitted in the Diploma in Nursing course, for the 2013-2014 session, by the previous orders passed by the learned Single Judge, cannot be held

to be valid in the eye of law.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Dr. Santhosh Kumari V. Union of

India, reported in (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 269, in support of his contentions. He had submitted that the matter relating to the allotment of

seats, according to merit, is one of principle and it does not depend upon, who comes to the Court. Even if candidates of higher merit do not

approach the Court, admissions should be made only according to merit.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the order passed by the learned Single

Judge, on 03.10.2013, in W.P. (MD) Nos. 16334 and 16335 of 2013, cannot be said to be erroneous or invalid. The learned Single Judge had

held, in his order, dated 03.10.2013, that the petitioners had approached this Court, belatedly, and therefore, they are not entitled to the reliefs

prayed for in the writ petitions. The admissions to the course of Diploma in Nursing 2013-2014 session had been completed on 30.09.2013, and

therefore, no candidate can be admitted to the Diploma in Nursing Course, for the year 2013-2014 session, for which the cut off date had been

fixed as 30.09.2013.

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on the decision of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and

Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , wherein, it had been held that the admissions should be completed by the 30th of September,

every year, as per the timetable, and the timetable mentioned in the notification, relating to M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses to be strictly adhered to

by all concerned, including the States and the Union Territories, as the observance of the time schedule is paramount for the timely grant of

admissions and in the commencement of the academic sessions.

He had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Medical Council of India Vs. Manas Ranjan Behera and Others, , wherein, the

Supreme Court had reiterated the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court, in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and

Others, .

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents had also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Faiza

Choudhary Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Another, , wherein, it had been held that the carry-forward principle, with regard to the vacant

seats, is unknown to the professional courses like medicine, engineering, dentistry, etc. There is no rule or regulation conferring the power on the

Board concerned to carry-forward a vacant seat to a succeeding year. The Supreme Court had further held that the High Courts or the Supreme

Court cannot be generous or liberal in issuing such directions.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, as well as the learned Special Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, and on considering the decisions, cited supra, we are of

the considered view that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the order of the learned Single

Judge, dated 03.10.2013, made in W.P. (MD) Nos. 16334 and 16335 of 2013.

It is not in dispute that the course of Diploma in Nursing is a professional course, in respect of which the cut off date for admission of students,

for the year 2013-2014, has been fixed as 30th of September, 2013. Therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly held that the appellants had

filed the writ petitions before this Court, belatedly, and therefore, they cannot be treated on par with the other candidates, who had approached

this Court, earlier. The learned Single Judge had also held that the admissions of the candidates for the said course had been completed and the

selected candidates had joined in the respective colleges. Further, the Supreme Court has stated, categorically, in the cases cited by the learned

Special Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, that no directions can be issued by the High Courts and the Supreme Court

for the admission of candidates beyond the cut off date, which has been fixed as the 30th September each year. In such circumstances, we are of

the considered view that the present appeals are devoid of merits, and therefore, they are liable to be dismissed. Hence, these writ appeals stand

dismissed. No costs.