Kerala High Court
Roshan Rahman P.K vs Dr.Aruna Parvathy on 13 September, 2012
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/6TH ASWINA 1934
WA.No. 1745 of 2012 () IN WPC/15989/2012
-----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WPC.15989/2012 DATED 13-09-2012
APPELLANT(S)/ADDL.RESPONDENTS 6 TO 8:
------------------------------------
1. ROSHAN RAHMAN P.K, AGED 28 YEARS
D/O. ABDUL RAHMAN AND W/O.MUHAMMAD ANEES P.'ASSAR'
ADIVARAM, KUNNAPPALLY P.O., PERUNTHALMANNA
2. BHAVYA K.S., D/O.K.KUNHIKANNAN,, AGED 25 YEARS
'SURABHI' HOUSE, POST KARIYOD SOUTH
THALASSERY KANNUR.
3. ROSEMOLE JOSE, D/O.P.P.JOSE,
PARAPPILLY HOUSE
OPP: ST.JOSEPH'S HIGH SCHOOL ANKAMALY, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS :
---------------------------
1. DR.ARUNA PARVATHY, AGED 28 YEARS
D/O.LALKUMAR, THUSHARA, VADAKKEVILA POST
MANNADA, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
2. DR. SOUMYA V.S., , AGED 28 YEARS
D/O.M.SADANANDAN, TC20/2146, VALIYIL VEEDU
KARAMANA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3. DR. DIVYA V.K.P., , AGED 28 YEARS
D/O.KRISHNA MOOSAD (LATE), JANAKI RANG
THRIKKANDIYOOR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
5. THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER,
GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
IRANIMUTTAM, MANACUD POST
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695009.
-2-
WA.No. 1745 of 2012
6. THE CHAIRMAN AND CONVENOR,
SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ADMISSION TO P.G. COURSES IN
HOMOEOPATHY
GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
IRANIMUTTAM, MANACUD POST
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
7. THE PRINCIPAL,
GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE
IRANIMUTTAM, MANACUD POST
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695009.
8. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
FIFTH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SHANTHI NAGAR
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.T.B.HOOD
R4 to R8 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.J.DAVIS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-09-2012
ALONG WITH WA.NO.1748 OF 2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J
&
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 1745 of 2012
&
W.A.No. 1748 of 2012
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of September, 2012
JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
The brief facts that led to filing of these two Writ Appeals are as under: Party respondents in the appeals originally filed W.P (C).No.11215 of 2012 seeking directin to the 6th respondent to allow them to appear for the allotment process for post- graduation in MD (Homoeo). The said Writ Petition came to be disposed of on 4.6.2012 reserving liberty to the 6th respondent to dispense with production of Transfer Certificate at the time of allotment process. Admittedly, the allotment process was on 12.6.2012, in which the writ petitioners in W.P(C).No.11215 of 2012 took part and were allotted MD (Homoeo) seats. In W.P(C). No.11215 of 2012, the present appellants were not parties to the proceedings. It was not a dispute, which involved the appellants in the Writ Appeals, as it was between the party respondents herein and the authorities, who were conducting the allotment process.
WA.1745 & 1748/12 2
2. Subsequently, after allotment of seats in MD (Homoeo), by virtue of securing ranks at Sl.Nos. 2, 6 and 8, they got allotment memo as well. As per these allotment memos, they were required to pay fee on 27.6.2012 by reporting to the 6th respondent, Principal of the College along with all original documents mentioned in the prospectus, which includes Transfer Certificate as well. Apparently, on 27.6.2012, when the respondents herein appeared before the Principal of the College, he did not admit them to the course on the ground that they had not completed examination of the previous MD course, which they were pursuing.
3. Again, they approached this Court by filing W.P(C). No.15989 of 2012. The present appellants in the said case became additional respondents and the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of along with a Review Petition filed by the present appellants to review the judgment in W.P(C).No.11215 of 2012 dated 4.6.2012. The Review Petition was dismissed and the second Writ Petition, W.P(C).No.15989 of 2012 was allowed by a common judgment dated 13.9.2012. W.A.No.1745 of 2012 is filed challenging the judgment in W.P(C).No.15989 of 2012 and W.A.No.1748 of 2012 is directed against the order in R.P.No.546 of 2012 in W.P(C).No.11215 of 2012.
WA.1745 & 1748/12 3
4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends, a student is not allowed to pursue two courses simultaneously, as it would be impracticable for him/her to attend the classes, hence, Transfer Certificate is insisted for admission. He also relied upon Chapter III of the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978 with regard to Transfer Certificate, apart from clause 19.1 of the prospectus, which is marked as Annexure A3. It is not in dispute that the party respondents herein were pursuing their BHMS, the basic qualification in the very same College, where they secured M.D seat as well after completion of their Bachelor's Degree. It is not in dispute, they had completed Bachelor of Homoeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) from the very same College and the 6th respondent in W.P(C).No.11215 of 2012 is the Principal of the said College. After completing their BHMS, they joined MD (Repertory). It is not in dispute that the party respondents secured MD seats in Repertory in 2009. The course commenced on 22.6.2009 and they were pursuing this post-graduation in the very same College, from which they secured Bachelors Degree in BHMS.
5. The question is, when they appeared for the Entrance Examination for MD (Homoeo), they secured rank Nos.2, 6 and 8 and even attended the allotment process in terms of directions of WA.1745 & 1748/12 4 this Court. According to the appellants, once they joined Master's Degree, they had to complete the said course and completion of said course includes examination, therefore, even if the classes are over, it cannot be treated as completion of course till they appear for the examination of the previous Master's Degree. It is not in dispute that the duration of Master's Degree in Repertory is also three years and the question is, when can one say he/she has completed the course. In this context, several letters came to be exchanged between the University and the Principal, as there were certain doubts whether Transfer Certificate could be issued to the party respondents in these appeals before they take examination of the previous Master's Degree.
6. Reading of Chapter III of the Kerala University First Ordinances, nowhere indicates that the Transfer Certificate has to be given only if the student concerned appears for the examination. The Transfer Certificate is apparently needed to see that no student would pursue two courses simultaneously and there has to be certainty with regard to the institution or College, from which he completes his course so as to allow the University to have on its rolls the details of the students to issue hall-ticket for the examination, if they appear for the examination. There cannot be any compulsion on any particular student to write any WA.1745 & 1748/12 5 particular examination and it is permissible for such students to take Transfer Certificate even in the middle of the course, if they desire so. After completion of the course, similarly, no one can insist that the student has to complete the previous Master's Degree. In the present case, one has to see whether technical problem would arise, i.e., whether the party respondents-students would be pursuing two Master's Degrees simultaneously, which would affect the quality and standard of study they pursue in the respective Master's Degrees.
7. As per the records, the previous M.D in Repertory course commenced on 22.6.2009 and the same is completed on 23.6.2012. When these students appeared for allotment process on 12.6.2012, seats were allotted without insisting on Transfer Certificate and they were required to be produced along with other documents on 27.6.2012. No doubt, the respondents have not appeared for the examination so far as M.D in Repertory course is concerned and they are entitled to appear for the said examination in accordance with the procedure, once the dates are notified for the examination. The question is before they complete the said examination, are they precluded from pursuing another Master's Degree. Clause 19.1 of the prospectus says, duration of the degree course, including University examination is three WA.1745 & 1748/12 6 years. Learned counsel for the appellants, placing reliance on this sentence, contends that when the duration of the degree course, including University examination is three years, till examination of that Master's Degree course is completed, it cannot be said that the respondents have completed the Master's Course. Neither in the prospectus, nor in the University Ordinance, any condition is imposed that if a student is pursuing Master's Degree in one faculty, he cannot be allowed to pursue a Master's Degree in another faculty.
8. The basic degree required to join Master's Degree is BHMS and the said course is completed by the party respondents way back in 2009 or so. The Transfer Certificates so far as this institution or College is concerned are within the custody of the Principal of the College, where they intend to pursue their second Master's Degree as well. Therefore, question of condition imposed in the General Rules or Ordinance that no student shall be allowed a transfer to another College or institution without a Transfer Certificate in the form prescribed would not come in the way at all. The only practical problem one has to see is whether these students would be able to pursue both the courses simultaneously. As already stated above, the previous Master's Degree course is completed as early as on 23.6.2012 and they WA.1745 & 1748/12 7 got admission only on 27.6.2012. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge was justified in saying, there cannot be any insistence for Transfer Certificate or completion of previous Master's Degree by the party respondents before they join the second Master's Degree.
9. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants was, only in order to secure stipend amount of Rs.15,000/-, the party respondents are joining the Master's Degree is not sustainable for the simple reason that there was no need for them to compete with other students and secure ranks at 2, 6 and 8 better than the ranks secured by the appellants, who stand at Rank Nos. 24, 26 and 28. If monetary benefit is the only goal to continue another Master's Degree, it was open to the appellants also to get better ranks than the party respondents to get such benefit. When the entire seat allotment is based on merit in the Entrance Examination, one cannot find fault with the desire of the party respondents to pursue another Master's Degree.
10. Learned Government Pleader submits, for MD course, stipend will be paid only for three years irrespective of when they complete the examination. In that view of the matter, even if they have not taken examination in M.D Repertory, the stipend payable would be only for M.D (Homoeo) and not for both the WA.1745 & 1748/12 8 courses. Viewed from any angle, we are of the opinion, the learned Judge was justified in allowing the Writ Petitions and also dismissing the Review Petitions.
11. So far as the maintainability of the appeal challenging the order in Review Petition, we may have to add one more aspect. In the absence of challenge against the judment in W.P (C).No.11215 of 2012, where these apellants, who were not parties to the first Writ Petition, could have sought for review of the order. Now, without challenging the judgment in W.P(C). No.11215 of 2012, they have challenged only the order in Review Petition. This is erroneous.
In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the party respondents is justified in saying, W.A.No.1748 of 2012 is not maintainable.
With these reasonings, we dismiss the Writ Appeals.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE vgs28.09