Dismissed

D.Keerthi, v. The Secretary

Madras HC5 Sept 2014WP/20128/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the selection committee's method of filling medical college vacancies arising from re-allotment. Justice Ramasubramaniau upheld the respondents' decision to promote candidates from backward communities over waiting list Open Category candidates to ensure reserved category seats are filled.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus was issued. The writ petition was dismissed. No costs awarded.

D.Keerthi, Vs The Secretary — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

¶5

D. Keerthi ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary,
Selection Committee,
Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 10.
2. The Dean,
PSG Medical College, Coimbatore.
3. The Medical Council of India rep. By
its Secretary,
Dwaraka Phase I, New Delhi – 77. ..Respondents

¶6

Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for re-allotment in the 2^nd respondent College to the MBBS course for 2014-2015 session under the OC category having fallen vacant due to re-allotment of the vacancy caused in the second counselling on 22.07.2014 by the 1^st respondent Selection Committee in any one of the seats which fell vacant vide Rank No. 754 or 923 or 1026 or 1040 forthwith.

¶7

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider the name of the petitioner for re-allotment in the 2^nd respondent College to MBBS course for the academic session 2014-2015.

¶8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶9

Heard Mr.L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.H. Arvindh Pandian, learned Additional Advocate General for the 1^st respondent, Mr.A. Jinasenan, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and Mr.V.P. Raman, learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶10

The petitioner belongs to Open Category. She secured cut-off marks of 198.25. At the time of first counselling, she was allotted to Sri Moogambigai Medical College, Kulasekaram.

¶11

At the time of second counselling, the petitioner found that 10 candidates allotted to PSG Medical College under the Open Category got re-allotted to other Colleges and went. Therefore, claiming that she is entitled to move up in the ranking list, to be able to get allotted to PSG Medical College, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

¶12

It is true that 10 candidates belonging to Open Category, who had secured cut-off marks ranging from 198.75 to 199.25 and who were originally allotted in the first phase of counselling on 22.06.2014, got re-allotted in the second phase of counselling on 22.07.2014 to other Colleges. Consequently, 10 vacancies arose. The respondents have re-arranged the list and moved candidates belonging to backward communities up in the list, which has resulted in some candidates belonging to backward communities, who were allotted to some other Colleges, also getting into PSG Medical College.

¶13

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the method adopted by the respondents is wrong. His contention is that persons from the waiting list of candidates belonging to Open Category should have been accommodated against those vacancies.

¶14

But, I do not think that the said contention is correct. If more meritorious candidates, who had first occupied the select list under the Open Category move out, other candidates, who did not get a slot under the Open Category, but, who were accommodated against the vacancies for backward communities, will have to move up so that the candidates belonging to backward communities, who have not got a slot against the vacancies reserved for backward communities, will get in there. This is the correct position of law. Therefore, the method adopted by the respondents cannot be found fault with. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.

¶15

Sd/Asst. Registrar(CO) Dt.18/09/14

¶16

/true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

nv
To
1. The Secretary,
Selection Committee,
Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk, Chennai – 10.
2. The Dean,
PSG Medical College, Coimbatore.
3. The Medical Council of India rep. By
its Secretary,
Dwaraka Phase I, New Delhi – 77.
+1cc to Mr.A. Jenasenan ,Advocate SR.No.42219
+1cc to Mr.L.Chandrakumar , Advocate SR.No.42102
+ 1 CC to the Government Pleader SR NO 42509
JP(CO)
ka 18/09
W.P. No. 20128 of 2014

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

D.Keerthi, v. The Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Keerthi, v. The Secretary

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

K.Mahalakshmi Vs The Director

M/S. Arss Anpr (Jv), Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S.Atlanta - Arss (Jv) Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Mohideen Haniff Vs The Chief Passport Officer

V.Devakumaran Vs The District Revenue Officer

M/s.Kal Cables Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Secretary