Kerala High Court
Dr.Seeja.P vs The State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2010
Author: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6362 of 2010(U)
1. DR.SEEJA.P
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
3. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :01/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.6362 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is now working as Lecturer in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the Government Medical College, Thrissur. She entered service as Lecturer in the year 1997. She applied for admission to MDS Course 2010 both under the quota reserved for Lecturers and General Merit Category. The petitioner belongs to Thiyya community which comes under the category of SEBC.
2. To qualify for admission to the MDS Course, the candidates should score 50% marks in the Entrance Examination conducted by the 3rd respondent but SC/ST and SEBC candidates need to score only 40% marks to qualify for the test. The petitioner's register number was 70558 and she has got 392 marks out of the total 800 marks that will work out to 49% under the service quota. But, when the results were announced as per Exhibit P5, the petitioner was disqualified on the ground that she did not get 50% marks and according to the petitioner, the same W.P.(C) No.6362/2010 2 is a wrong thing in the light of the fact that the petitioner belongs to SEBC category. It is pointed out that another candidate from the SEBC category who got only 388 marks has been declared to have passed the test. Seeking for appropriate correction of the results of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed Exhibits P6 and P7 representations before the 3rd respondent. It is prayed that the 3rd respondent may be directed to take a decision on them within a time frame and before the seats are filled up.
The petitioner claims to be the only applicant under the Lecturer quota. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to take a decision on Exhibits P6 and P7 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after considering the pleas made by the petitioner. Till then, the seats reserved for the Lecturer quota will not be converted to any other quota. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition for compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp