Madras High Court
G. Sumathi vs The Director Of Medical Education, ... on 4 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: AIR1993MAD328, AIR 1993 MADRAS 328, 1993 WRITLR 344 (1993) 1 MAD LW 545, (1993) 1 MAD LW 545
Author: D. Raju
Bench: D. Raju
ORDER K. S. Bakthavatsalam, J.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is issue a writ of mandamus or direction in the nature of writ, directing the respondents to give admission for the petitioner in the first year M.B.B.S. course in the Government Madras Medical College, Madras-600003 with College Code 01 for her entrance No. 222609 in the year 1992-93 session or in the ensuing session of the first year M.B.B.S. course in Madras Medical College.
2. The short point that arises for conside-ration in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled to a seat in the first year M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1992-93, under the special category Item V of Annexure-I. In Annexure-I, about 53 seats are reserved for nine categories out of which Item V is for 'Tamil language'. Guidelines with regard to the selection under the head 'Tamil Language' is provided for in Annexure-VIII. Annexure-VIII reads as follows :
"Tamil Language The following categories of students only shall be made eligible to apply for admission to MBBS/COURSE FOR THE SEATS RESERVED FOR TAMIL Language:
a) Candidates whose parents have lost their lives for bringing Tamil as Official Language of Tamil Nadu and as the prime language of Tamil Nadu.
b) Candidates whose parents have suffered imprisonment for bringing Tamil as Official Language of Tamil Nadu and as the prime language of Tamil Nadu.
c) Candidates whose parents have worked for the development of Tamil.
NOTE : The prioritisation shall be at (a), (c) and (b) above unless the period of imprisonment is at least one year.
A. The Government also direct that the officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildars of the respective areas and the MLAs and MPs of TamilNadu are competent to issue certificates to the candidates who apply for admission to the MBBS Course against the seats reserved for Tamil Language ....."
The petitioner, who is a daughter of one T. Ganapathiappan, applied for the first year M.B.B.S. course as well as B.S.M.S. and B.H.M.S. courses. The petitioner belongs to the backward community. It is alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner's father, who is a practising Advocate of this Court, has suffered imprisonment for more than one and a half years for participating in anti-Hindi agitations to protect Tamil as prime language of Tamil Nadu. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner's father has worked for the development of Tamil language. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the petitioner, along with her sister, applied for other courses enclosing the certificates of her father. It is also alleged that she applied lor the first year M.B.B.S. in the same manner. In compliance of the Annexure-VIII of the prospect us. It is also stated that the very same certificate has been submitted with all other applications for other courses also. It is also alleged that the results for the special category were not published and that only after such a long delay the results for the special category were published. The petitioner also alleges that for the BSMS course she was selected as No. 3 in the waiting list for the seats reserved for Tamil protection, and that though she has submitted the very same certificate for being selected under the special category, she has not been selected for the first year M.B.B.S. course. The petitioner further alleges that the actual allocation of seals for each category in the selection is completely in violation of the norms prescribed in the guidelines to the prospectus issued for the first year M.B.B.S. course. It is also alleged in the affidavit that many candidates who have not submitted their applications against the vacancies reserved for special category and many candidates who are not eligible for such special categories were selected for the M.B.B.S. course under special category. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioner was not aware of the names of the selected candidates against the seats reserved under the special category "Tamil Language" since the names of the selected candidates were not published and that the names of the selected candidates will be impleaded at a later stage. The petitioner also alleges that the guidelines prescribed in Annexure-VIII of the prospectus will clearly show that the petitioner is entitled to the priority over other candidates as she comes under Item(b) of Annexure-VIII, since her father suffered imprisonment for more than a year for the development of Tamil language. Since the list has been notified only on 16-12-1992, the petitioner has come up to this Court with the prayer stated above, at this stage.
3. When the writ petition was posted for admission, we ordered notice to Mr. Shan-mugham to the Additional Government Pleader (Standing) and he appears for the respondents. The first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit on 17-2-1993 in which it is stated that the consideration for selection for B.H.M.S. and D.Com. (Siddha Course) cannot be taken into account for the selection to the M.B.B.S. course. It is also stated that the consideration for selection for special category has to be gone in accordance with the conditions as prescribed in the prospectus. It is also stated therein that the Tamil was adopted as the official language for the State of Tamil Nadu by the Tamil Nadu Official Language Act, 1956. It is also stated that the Government took a policy decision to confer special benefit to the children of those who had suffered for bringing Tamil as prime language of Tamil Nadu, that the Government considered those who had sacrificed their lives for removing the prejudices against Tamil language, those who have contributed for the making Tamil as medium of instruction to those who have implemented the policies of eminent leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, Feriyar, Anna and Rajaji for those who have in spite of obstacles had struggled for achieving these objectives as persons eligibie for the benefits of the present scheme and that the petitioner cannot be considered as the one that has contributed for the.above objectives. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the respondents have strictly adhered to the norms and conditions prescribed in the prospectus and that the petitioner was not considered for the selection because she has not fulfilled the conditions. It is also stated that the petitioner is not qualified to be eligible under the special category.
4. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit on 19-2-1993 in which it is stated that the classification for the purpose of giving the benefit under the special category "Tamil language" to candidates whose parents have suffered imprisonment for bringing Tamil as official language of Tamil Nadu and as the prime language of Tamil Nadu came from the year 1990-91. It is further stated that from the year 1981-82 onwards, the classification for the special category was to those candidates whose parents have suffered for the cause of development of Tamil and that during the year 1987-88 while categorising the eligible candidates for seats reserved for Tamil language it has been stated thus :
"Tamil Language (Annexure-IX) (See Annexure-I) The following categories of students only shall be made eligible to apply for admission to MDBS course for the seals reserved for "Tamil Language".
1. Candidates whose parents had the development of Tamil language in its various branches as their goal in life and who had continuously toiled towards achieving this object without expecting any reward and who in the process, spent their lives in indigent circumstances.
2. Candidates whose parents have worked towards maintaining the ancient glory and the hoary past and greatness of the Tamil language, who have worked to develop the language to meet the expectations of the growing scientific world and who have done research and written standard Tamil books based on the findings of such research and thereby enriched the language.
3. Candidates whose parents worked within the framework of the Constitution of India for bringing Tamil as the official language of the State of Tamil Nadu and for establishing Tamil as the prime language of Tamil Nadu and who devoted their life time towards achieving this end.
4. The Government also direct that the officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar of the respective areas and the MLAs and MPs of Tamil Nadu are competent to issue certificates to the candidates who apply for admission to the MBBS course against the seats reserved for Tamil language.
It is submitted thai during 199-91 the prioritisation was given to those who had sacrificed their lives and suffered imprisonment and the same benefit continued. No candidates under these two clauses were available for consideration ..."
It is further submitted that when the Government intended to give the benefits by reserving seats under "Tamil language" to such of those who had worked for the development of the Tamil as official language, that in this case the petitioner has not provided adequate proof of document to establish to come within the category. It is stated that the second respondent gave four telegrams to the petitioner for the purpose of producing evidence but the petitioner did not respond to those telegrams. It is also stated that the selection for the MBBS course was conducted in accordance with the rules as set out in the prospectus and that the criteria for any other course or the eligibility and the selection in any other course cannot be a ground for being considered for the MBBS course. It is categorically slated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has failed to prove that her father suffered imprisonment for bringing Tamil as official language for Tamil Nadu as prime language for Tamil Nadu. It is also stated that the results for special category was announced in newspapers on 14-11-1992, that about 25 writ petitions were filed challenging the selection in special category before this Court and got disposed, and that therefore the contention of the petitioner that the selection for special category was kept secretly is not correct. It is also stated that the selection by the computerised list along with other materials for different categories were placed before this Court on the earlier occasion ilself.
5. Mr. S. Ramasamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner states the certificates issued by a sitting local MLA and another by MP show that the petitioner is entitled lo get a seat under the special category. Learned counsel for the petitioner also points out that as per guidelines in the prospectus as found in Annexure-VIII, the petitioner comes under category (b) which is applicable for candidates whose parents suffered imprisonment for bringing Tamil as prime language of Tamil Nadu. The learned counsel further states that as per the 'Note' to the Annexure-VIII, the petitioner has to be given priority over the candidates appeared in categories (a) and (c) but was not given. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out the petitioner's father suffered imprisonment for bringing Tamil as prime language and as such she is entitled to get a scat in the MBBS course for the academic year 1992-93. The learned counsel further points out that the petitioner had been selected for other courses on the basis of the certificate under the special category of 'Tamil language' and as such to deny a seat to the petitioner in the MBBS course is highly arbitrary and illegal.
6. Per Contra, Mr. P. Shanmugham, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) contends that the petitioner is not entitled to get a seat in the special category and that she does not come under any of the clauses in the Annexure-VIII. Learned Additional Government Pleader further contends that no candidate is selected under categories (a) and (b) and candidates have been selected under clause (c) only. Learned Additional Government Pleader refers to the decision in R. R. Dalava v. State of Tamil Nadu, , for the proposition that if the petitioner claims a seat on the basis that her father took part in anti-Hindi agitations, it will be against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. To a specific question put the learned Additional Government Pleader categorically states that in view of the petitioner's father participation in the ami-Hindi agitations, the petitioner cannot come under clause (b) of Annexure-VIII and as such she is not entitled for a seat in MBBS course. It is also submitted that seats are filled up and that batch of writ petitions were filed questioning the specia! category and came before the very same Bench and records have been perused. That apart, the learned Additional Government Pleader represents that candidates were selected only under clause (c) and that the selection is made on the basis of the guidelines prescribed in the prospectus and this Court should take note of the guidelines prescribed in the prospectus and that since the petitioner has not complied with the conditions laid down in the prospectus, she is not entitled to get a seat.
7. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments of Mr. S, Rama-samy, the learned counsel for the petitioner and of Mr. P. Shanmugham, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) who appears for the respondents. We have perused the records produced before this Court. The learned Additional Government Pleader has also produced the note of the Cabinet which was issued when late Dr. M. G. Ramachandran was the Chief Minister of the Tamil Nadu and we have perused the same. As we have already stated whether the petitioner is entitled to get a seat under clause (b) of Annexure-VIII of the prospectus is the question to be decided. Annexure-VIII has already been extracted above and we do not think it necessary to extract once again. According to the learned Additional Government Pleader, candidates were selected only under clause (c) and no candidate has been selected under clauses (a) and (b), as they do not satisfy the norms. It is necessary to look into the changes which occurred from in the year 1987-88. In the prospectus issued for the year 1987-88 Annexure-IX speaks of 'Tamil language' as follows:
"Tamil Language Annexure-IX (See Annexure-I) The following categories of students only shall be made eligible to apply for admission to MBBS course for the seats reserved for 'Tamil Language':
1. Candidates whose parents had the development of Tamil language in its various branches as their goal in life and who had continuously toiled towards achieving this object without expecting any reward and who in the process, spent their lives in indigent circumstances,
2. Candidates whose parents have worked towards maintaining the ancient glory and the hoary past and greatness of the Tamil language, who have worked to develop the language to meet the expectation of the growing scientific world and who have done research and written standard Tamil books based on the findings of such research and thereby enriched the language.
3. Candidates whose parents worked within the framework of the Constitution of India for bringing Tamil as the official language of the State of Tamil Nadu and for establishing Tamil as the prime language of Tamil Nadu and who devoted their life time towards achieving this end.
4. The Government also direct that the officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildars of the respective areas and the MLAs and MPs of Tamil Nadu are competent to issue certificates to the candidates who apply for admission to the MBBS course against the seats reserved for Tamil language ..."
This is followed for the academic years 1988-89 and also for 1989-90. Only during the academic year 1990-91, Annexure-IX which prescribes guidelines for special category under 'Tamil Language' was changed and it reads as follows:
"Tamil Language (Annexure-IX) (See Annexure-I, Item 5) The following categories of students only shall be made eligible to apply for admission to MBBS course for the seats reserved for Tamil language:
a) Candidates whose parents have lost their lives for bringing Tamil as official language of Tamil Nadu and as the prime language of Tamil Nadu.
b) Candidates whose parents have suffered imprisonment for bringing Tamil as official language of Tamil Nadu and as the prime language of Tamil Nadu.
c) Candidates whose parents have worked for the development of Tamil.
NOTE: The prioritisation shall be as at (a), (c) and (b) above unless the period of imprisonment is at least one year.
4. The Government also direct that the officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar of the respective areas and the MLAs and MPs of Tamil Nadu are competent to issue certificates to the candidates who apply for admission to the MBBS course against the seats reserved for Tamil language ..."
This has been followed for the academic years 1991-92 and 1992-93. On a perusal of the prospectus issued for so many years, we see that till the academic year 1990-91, the condition with regard to imprisonment is not found. Clause (b) of Annexure-VIII as it stands today has been introduced stating that candidates whose parents have suffered imprisonment for bringing Tamil as official language of Tamil Nadu and as the prime language of Tamil Nadu, only from the academic year 1990-91. We called for the records relating to G.O.Ms. No. 1146 Health and Family Welfare Department dated 25-6-1990 and gone through the same along with the files, connected thereto, to understand how clause (b) has been introduced. We find a letter had emanated from the then Director of Education to the Secretary to Health Department introducing clause (b) with regard to imprisonment. The Government has passed G.O.Ms. No. 1146, Health, Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy and Family Welfare Department dated, 25-6-1990 in which it is seen that the Government have examined the revised procedure and guidelines suggested by the Director of Medical Education for selection of candidates under the special caiegory of 'Tamil language' and the Government have accepted the prioritisation as found in the prospectus today. We are able to gather that in the previous years a committee constituted with the Director of Medical Education. Secretary, Selection Committee and the Director of Tamil Development was assisting the Selection Committee to scrutinize the eligibility of candidates applying under the special category and based on the assessment of the said committee (he Selection Committee proposed to select candidates with reference to the order of merit. It is also seen from the files that it is the suggestion of the Director of Medical Education that the officers of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildars of the respective areas and the MLAs and MPs of Tamil Nadu are competent to issue certificates to the candidates, who apply for MBBS course under the special category. The order of priority is also seen as found in clause (b) of Annexure-VIII. So for the first time clause (b) has been introduced from the academic year 1990-91. According to the prospectus, the Revenue Officers not below the rank of Tahsildars of the respective areas and the MLAs and MPs are competent to issue a certificate. In this case, we find that two certificates have been issued, one by silting local MLA and another by a sitting MP as found in the prospectus. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the certificates alone cannot conclude the issue. If the categorisation of all the clauses in Annexure-VIII is read together, we are of the view that the petitioner will not come under any of the categories under the special category. A reference to the decision in A. R. Dalavai v. State of Tamil Nadu, can be usefully referred to wherein the Supreme Court has held that the pension scheme formulated by Tamil Nadu Government granting pension to anti-Hindi agitators is not valid and the scheme contains the vice of dis-integration and fomenting fissiparous tendencies. It is also stated therein that there is no legislative sanction for such a pension scheme and it is violative of Art. 351 of the Constitution of India. So when we construe clause (b) of Annexure-VIII of the prospectus, we have to keep in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court, mentioned above, also. We are bound by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court also. If it is construed in such a way. we are of the view that the learned Additional Government Pleader is right in saying that the petitioner will not come under any of the categories mentioned in the special category 'Tamil Language'.
8. That apart, we think it necessary to refer to the decision of Mohan, J. (as he then was) in Ravichandran v. Union of India, 1987 WLR 630, also to strengthen our view, wherein the Official Language Act was challenged, it has been held as follows :
"... Then again, the distinction between English and Hindi on the one hand and the other languages mentioned in Schedule-VIII is this : The Constitution and the Official Language Act have continued the use of English for official purposes of the Union of India. Therefore, English stands in a class by itself not only on account of historical reasons but also on account of constitutional and Legislative provisions. Equally, Hindi also occupies a position by itself. It is the official language of the Union of India. The Constitution contemplates that it should gradually replace English. Therefore, Hindi is also a class by itself while the other languages mentioned in Schedule-VIII stand on a different footing. It is this distinction which the argument of the petitioner tends to overlook. As a matter of fact, in Dayabhai v. Natherlal, , it was held that the effect of the proviso to Art. 345 is that even after the adoption by the State of any of the regional language or Hindi as the official language, the English language can continue to be used for those official purposes within the State for which it was being used immediately before the commencement of the Constitution, until the Legislative of the State otherwise provides by law. In other words, such a legislation must expressly exclude the use of English.
Our Constitution has established a single Indian citizenship throughout India. Article 19 guarantees to every citizen the fundamental right to move freely throughout the territory of India, and to settle, acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of that territory. As the Supreme Court observed in Gopalan's case these provisions are meant to remove provincial barriers and to establish that the citizens of India are all citizens of one country, free to move, work, live and settle in any part of the country. The equality provisions of Art. 15 of our Constitution forbid discrimination against citizens on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth. Language is not included in this list, but a discrimination on the ground of language is opposed to the basic concept of the Unity of India to which a common Indian citizenship and a common country testify. Therefore, the argument that it is violative of Arts. 15 and 16 cannot be accepted. Nor again is there any infringement of Art. 21.
If the Constitution is to function in the spirit in which it was conceived, it is imperative that one common language should take the place which English occupied before independence and continued to occupy during the first fifteen years after the Constitution was enacted. Arts. 343 and 344 deal with the process of transition to the use of Hindi for all the official purposes of the Union while the ultimate aim is what is found in Art. 351. The said Article categorically lays down that it shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language to develop it so that it may serve as a medium of expression for all the elements of the composite culture of India and to secure its enrichment. Art. 334(6) takes into consideration this objective and is intended, to determine the phase of progress and to achieve the same....."
So, we are in entire agreement with the learned Additional Government Pleader (Education) that the petitioner is not entitled to get a seat under clause (b) of the Annexure VIII, simply because her father took part in the anti-Hindi agitations.
9. That apart, with regard ,to the mode of selection we have gone into the records and the files produced before this Court. On the earlier occasion, when questions were raised with regard to special category and we were satisfied that selections made were quite in order. As point outed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, under the special category 'Tamil Language' for this academic year 1992-93, there were nine applicants without certificates under clause (a) and there were ten applicants under clause (b) and the petitioner cannot come under clause (b). As such, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the selection made on the facts and circumstances of the case, with regard to special category 'Tamil Language' and the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have to be rejected.
10. More so, we are not convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that simply because the petitioner had been considered for other courses, under the special category she has to be considered for M.B.B.S. course also. As we have pointed out, clause (b) with regard to imprisonment, has been changed from the year 1990-91, in so far as the selection for M.B.B.S. course is concerned and the criteria of selection to other courses will not apply to the selection to M.B.B.S. course, since the selection procedure for M.B.B.S. course is entirely different one. In our view, it depends upon the terms and conditions of the prospectus issued for the particular course.
11. It is settled law that while considering the admission for a particular professional course, norms and procedures have to be construed properly and applicants have to comply with the conditions therein. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Rathnasway, Dr. v. Director of Medical Education, 1986 WLR 207 that the rules and norms to be strictly and solemnly adhered to. It has been approved by a later Division Bench which is reported in Suryanarayana Raju. G; Dr. v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, 1992 WLR SSL In Romini Susan Kurian v. State of A.P., it has been held as follows at Page 384 :--
".....The prospectus issued by the University binds the candidates who seek admission and unless any portion of the prospectus is held to be illegal, Court cannot direct either amendment of the prospectus or consideration of the claim of a student in a manner otherwise than that provided in the prospectus...."
In view of the settled position in law, if the conditions and the norms in the prospectus issued in this case are looked at, we are of the view that the petitioner herein cannot complain about her non-selection,
12. For the reasons stated above, we see no merits in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly this writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
13. Petition dismissed.