Dismissed

Dr.Ruby R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Aug 2013WA/1211/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed appeals shortening admissions to Post Graduate Medical courses. The appellants, SEBC candidates, could not claim category status due to exceeding income limits set in the prospectus, as they failed to approach the court earlier for interim relief when similar candidates received benefits based on Non-Creamy Layer Certificates.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed as appellants failed to seek interim relief and were not entitled to SEBC category due to income limits.

Dr.Ruby R Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/21ST SRAVANA, 1935

¶5

WA.No. 1211 of 2013 () IN WP(C).18774/2013

¶6

-------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18774/2013 DATED 31-07-2013

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

DR.RUBY R, AGED 42 YEARS S/O N.S RAJAPPAN, KRISHNA GAYATHRI, CMC 28/588, P.O CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 688524

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶12

DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SHANTI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶14

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-082013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J.

¶17

¶18

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Writ Appeal Nos.1211,1212 & 1213 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of August, 2013

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Manjula Chellur,CJ

¶22

All the three appellants have approached this Court claiming category of SEBC for admission to the Post Graduate Degree/Diploma course in Medical sciences. Appellants are inservice candidates. According to them, learned Single Judge having disagreed with the restriction of income so far as SEBC candidates, as per the prospectus, the respondent-authorities had to consider all those candidates who were able to produce Non Creamy Layer Certificate irrespective of the annual income as indicated in the prospectus at Ext.P1.

¶23

Admittedly these appellants did not approach the learned Single Judge at the relevant point of time, though some of their colleagues were diligent in approaching this Court and thus obtained an interim order wherein the learned Single Judge

¶24

¶25

Writ Appeal Nos.1211, 1212 & 1213 of 2013

¶26

allowed the authorities to consider all the candidates who produced Non Creamy Layer Certificate irrespective of their income. Later on, the writ petition also came to be disposed of in terms of the interim order so far as this controversy is concerned.

¶27

The question is whether the benefit given to the writ petitioners in those matters could be extended to all the candidates who were similarly placed. Unfortunately, because of time limit for completion of allotment process, as per the directions of Apex Court, the learned Single Judge restricted the benefits only to the writ petitioners who approached this Court. Therefore, considering the case of these appellants, who approached later, would not arise. As per the prospectus dated 19.04.2013 there was limit on annual income so far as SEBC group is concerned. As the income of the appellants was more than the income limit shown in the prospectus, none of them were considered under the category of SEBC; but they were considered under the category of general candidates. The appellant conceded to that and did not challenge it.

¶28

¶29

Writ Appeal Nos.1211, 1212 & 1213 of 2013

¶30

In pursuance of recommendation by National Commission for SC/ST in consultation with MCI the percentile issue pertaining to the candidates belonging to SC/ST came to be recommended as per the Information Bulletin. The percentile and the percentage exercise came to be applied uniformly to all categories irrespective of the fact that it pertain to SC/ST group alone. However, while disposing of the issue pertaining to percentile and whether it applies to all the categories, that is, General, Physically Disabled Category and SC/ST/OBC, Division Bench of this Court finally observed that relaxation of marks by percentage exercise is applicable only to SC/ST/OBC and no other categories.

¶31

In that view of the matter, though the rank list prepared by the respondent-authorities initially did not include these appellants, later on after recommendation of NEET for relaxation of percentage of marks, when applied to all the categories; the names of these appellants came to be included in the list pertaining to general category and not SEBC. However, by virtue of judgment dated 31.07.2013 such relaxation of marks

¶32

Writ Appeal Nos.1211, 1212 & 1213 of 2013 4

¶33

was made inapplicable to general category. So far as benefits extended to similarly placed SEBC candidates, appellants did not approach the court and take an interim order in their favour like other writ petitioners. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion, none of the grounds raised in these appeals are sustainable.

¶34

Over and above, though admissions are completed, none of the parties who were fortunate enough to get admission to Post Graduate and Diploma courses are made parties to these proceedings. Accordingly these appeals are dismissed.

¶35

MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶36

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶37

sj13/8

Dr.Ruby R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ruby R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Guinness Madasamy Vs the Chairman, Film Censor Board of Kerala

Dr. Anil Kumar Vs Dr. Satheesh Kumar P.K.

K.V. Kumaran Vs Smt. Susheela Nair

P.D.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Gopidas Vs Dr.Thomas K.Koshy

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs K.J. Michael