Kerala High Court
Unknown vs By Advs.Sri.P.K.Ibrahim on 19 June, 2009
Author: T.R. Ramachandran Nair
Bench: T.R.Ramachandran Nair
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934
WP(C).No. 9007 of 2012 (A)
--------------------------
PETITIONER
--------------
AL SALAMA EYE HOSPITAL LTD.,
HOSPITAL ROAD, PERUNTHALMANNA, PIN-679322
MALAPPURAM DT. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
A.SAMSUDIN
ARIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PO., VENGOOR
VIA. PATTIKKAD, MALAPPURAM. PIN-679 325.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM
SMT.A.A.SHIBI
RESPONDENT:
---------------
1. STATE OF KERALA
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (K) DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
2. THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN 695 011.
3. THE REGISTRAR,
KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCES
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR-680596.
BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY.HEALTH
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ROSHAN D.ALEXANDER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 9007 of 2012 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O DATED 19.6.2009.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE
SECOND RESPONDENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
DATED 5.9.2009.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT OF AFFILIATION DATED 9.6.2010
ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF PERMISSION DATED 3.7.2010
ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR STARTING BSC.
PTOMETRY COURSE FROM 2010-11.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.7.2010 GRANTING
AFFILIATION BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
FOR BSC. OPTOMETRY COURSE.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 23.7.2010.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED
23.7.2010 MODIFYING THE INTAKE OF THE STUDENTS
FROM 50 TO 30.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE GOVT. DATED
26.7.2010 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 15.7.2011.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER DATED
16.7.2011 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE FIRST
RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.2012.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.1.2012 TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.3.2012 TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P14: COPY OF THE REMINDER TO EXT.P13 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER FOR ORDERS ENHANCING BSC.OPTOMETRY
SEATS FROM 30 TO 50 FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2012-2013.
-2-
WP(C).No. 9007 of 2012 (A)
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
dlk
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 9007 of 2012
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P13 and enhance the seats from 30 to 50 in B.Sc. Optometry course for the academic year 2012-2013, or at least enhance on par with the enhancement made in favour of Ahallya International Foundation Eye Hospital.
2. The petitioner was given a letter of intent by the first respondent State for starting the course for the academic year 2010-2011. After completing various formalities, the consent for affiliation was obtained from the third respondent with an annual intake of 50 students, subject to the permission of the Government, as per Ext.P3. By Ext.P4, Government granted permission for an intake of 30. It is averred that the petitioner has made all the infrastructural facilities for starting of the said course with the intake of 50 students. The Government by Ext.P6 directed the second respondent to allot students to 50% merit seats. The third respondent had, in the meanwhile, granted provisional affiliation as evident from Ext.P5. The provisional affiliation was granted for an annual intake of 50 students. But WPC.90072012 - 2- later, the third respondent revised the order of affiliation by reducing the intake from 50 to 30, as per Ext.P7 order. The Government also communicated as per Ext.P8, as a clarification to Ext.P6, with regard to the permission to allow only 30 students. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the Government to enhance the seats from 30 to 50, for the academic year 2011-2012. This was answered by the Government by Ext.P9. It is the contention of the petitioner that in Ahallya International Foundation Eye Hospital, 40 seats have been allotted and there is total discrimination. Again, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P11 and P12 communications stating that the request for further enhancement cannot be acceded to. It is made clear in Ext.P12 that sanctioning of 40 seats to Ahallya Eye Hospital instead of 30 is an omission while processing the inspection report which recommended for 40 seats. In the next academic year it can be reduced to 30 seats, if needed and that the maximum seats for any paramedical course may be fixed as 30.
3. This is the factual scenario under which the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the treatment meted out to the petitioner is totally discriminatory.
4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, justifying the rejection of the request for enhancement of intake. It is averred that the Government has considered the advice of the Director of WPC.90072012 - 3- Medical Education in relation to matters relating to para medical courses including B.Sc. Optometry course, and the request of the petitioner was forwarded to the Director of Medical Education who informed the Government that the request could be considered only after successful completion of the course by the first batch of B.Sc. Optometry. The Director also informed that the maximum number of seats for any institution may be fixed as 30. Accordingly, the Government declined the request for enhancement of seats.
5. Therefore, the learned Government Pleader submitted that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and all the aspects have been considered while taking the decision.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no proper decision by the Government with regard to the total number of seats, especially in the light of the fact that another institution has been granted the facility to have a higher intake.
7. As regards the argument that there is total discrimination, in the light of the stand taken in Ext.P12, the same cannot be accepted. It is made clear therein that sanctioning of 40 seats in Ahallya Eye Hospital instead of 30, is an omission. Therefore, it is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked in such circumstances. The challenge against the proceedings therefore cannot survive, as it is evident WPC.90072012 - 4- that various aspects were considered in the matter.
8. Apart from the same, as pointed out in the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent, the Government have accepted the advice of the Director of Medical Education who informed that the maximum number of seats for any institution may be fixed as 30.
9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with Exts.P11 and P12. The seats, if any, granted by way of omission, to Ahallya International Foundation Eye Hospital cannot help the petitioner to advance the argument. But it is clear that to avoid future controversies, it is proper for the Government itself to take a uniform decision. Even going by the averments in para 3 of the statement that there is a request by the Director of Medical Education to fix the maximum number of seats for any institution as 30. It will be prudent for the Government to take a decision which can be made applicable in common to every one of the institutions by fixing the maximum number of seats.
The writ petition is dismissed subject to the above observations and the Government will take a decision without delay. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/