Kerala High Court
Dr. Subu R vs State Of Kerala on 19 April, 2013
Author: A.M. Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014/10TH ASHADHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 16330 of 2014 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------
DR. SUBU R.,
LECTURER IN ORTHODONTICS,
GOVERNMENT DENTAL COLLEGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN.
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.
2. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.
3. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rvs/
WP(C).No. 16330 of 2014 (M)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
----------------------
EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM GENERAL
HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 19.4.2013.
EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO POST GRADUATE
COURSES IN DENTAL SURGERY - 2014 DATED 3.3.2014 (RELEVANT
PORTION).
EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO.1152/2014/H&FWD DATED 4.4.2014.
EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE DATED 18.3.2014 ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYIROOR.
EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10.6.2014 TO THE IST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------
NIL.
/true copy/
P.A.TO JUDGE
rvs/
A.M. Shaffique, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 16330 of 2014
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 1st day of July, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner has approached this Court inter alia requesting for modification of the qualifying marks in the prospectus by reducing the marks from 40% to 33.75%.
2. The facts involved in the case would show that the petitioner got only 33.75% marks in the qualifying examination. The minimum marks required was 40% for persons with disability. According to the petitioner, there are no candidates who had acquired 40% marks in the relative subject or 45% in the other category of service and therefore if there is no reduction in the qualifying marks, some seats will fall vacant. He submitted Ext. P6 representation to the Government, which is not considered, is complaint of the petitioner.
3. As far as the reduction of the qualifying marks is concerned, it is clearly a matter within the discretion of the Government. In the present case, the prospectus has already been published and it is after the publication of the results that the petitioner had approached for reducing qualifying marks, and that too, in peculiar circumstances.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that Ext. P6 has already been considered and rejected as per communication dated 26.6.2014. The W.P(C) No. 16330 of 2014 -: 2 :- Government formed an opinion that conditions in the prospectus cannot be modified at this stage of the proceedings.
5. Under these circumstances, since the Government has now taken a decision in the matter, I do not think that this Court should call upon the Government to reduce the qualifying marks.
In the result, there being no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/