Disposed

M.Arjunan, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC10 Sept 2014WP/24502/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a 5% reservation for children of ex-army men in MBBS courses. The High Court directed the respondents to examine the enhancement of seats without specifying a percentage and ordered action within two months. The petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to examine the question of enhancement of seats reserved for children of ex-servicemen within two months.

M.Arjunan, Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras

¶2

Dated: 10.09.2014

¶3

Coram:

¶4

The Honourable Mr. SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, Chief Justice and

¶5

The Honourable Mr. Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

Writ Petition No.24502 of 2014

¶7

M. Arjunan .. Petitioner
vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Government
Health and Family Welfare Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Medical Education
Directorate of Medical Education
Kilpauk, Chennai -10.
3. The Director
Medical Council of India
Pocket-14, Sector-8
Dwaraka Phase-I
New Delhi 110 077. .. Respondents

¶8

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.07.2014 for enhancement of ex-army men's quota from the present 2 seats to 5% of the total available seats.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. L. Muniswamy
For Respondents : Mr. D. Krishnakumar
Spl. Govt. Pleader (Edn.).
O R D E R

¶10

(Made by The Hon'ble The Chief Justice)

¶11

The petitioner, through this public interest litigation, makes a plea for reservation of some seats in the MBBS course for the children of ex-army persons. It is stated that in the year 1984-85, there was some reservation and at present, two seats are being

¶12

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

¶13

provided for the said category as per the information disclosed under the Right to Information Act, 2013, on 13.11.2013. It is also stated that the number of ex-servicemen having increased considerably, as also the total number of seats and thus, there should be a reservation of 5%.

¶14

On examination of the plea and considering the services rendered by the army men, we call upon the respondents to examine the question of enhancement of seats reserved for the children of exservicemen. We would not like to specify any percentage, but the Government may examine the issue, keeping in mind the total number of seats available, especially when two seats were reserved earlier, correspondingly some seats can be reserved on the same percentage, taking into consideration the enhanced total number of seats at present. The petitioner has already made representations to the different authorities, which have been placed along with the typedset. The needful be done within a maximum period of two months from today.

¶15

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ATR
To
1. The Secretary to Government
of Tamil Nadu
Health and Family Welfare Department
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Director of Medical Education
Directorate of Medical Education
Kilpauk, Chennai -10.
3. The Director
Medical Council of India
Pocket-14, Sector-8
Dwaraka Phase-I
New Delhi 110 077.
1 cc to Mr.L. Muniswamy ,Advocate, SR.No.42972
1 cc to Government Pleader,Sr.No.40584
W.P. No. 24502 of 2014
nm(co)pmk.16.9.2014

¶16

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

M.Arjunan, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Arjunan, v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Santhanagopalan, Vs the Union of India

Elephant G.Rajendran, Vs the Registrar General

C.R.Baskaran Vs the Ministry of Road Transport

M.Senthilnathan Vs The Chief Election

Pavalar B.Sankaran, Vs State of Tamilnadu, rep by its

Lakshmikanthan, Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu