The petitioner challenges Clause 7.3 in Ext. P2 prospectus, which, inter alia, grants certain benefits to PG Diploma candidates under service quota. Clause 7.3 reads thus: “Declaration for Service Quota Candidates: Service candidates who have selected/undergone PG Degree course under Service quota, earlier, will not be eligible for selection under service quota for a second time. However a candidate who has obtained PG Diploma under Service Quota is eligible to apply for the Degree Course in the same speciality and is entitled to get the Service Quota benefit for that degree course in the same speciality alone. A declaration to the effect that he/she has not selected/undergone PG Degree course under the service quota should be furnished by the candidate along with the application.”
The main contention urged by the petitioner is that in the prospectus of 2012, PG Diploma holders under service quota was not eligible to apply for degree course in the same specialty and entitled to service quota for a second time whereas, when 2014 prospectus is published while sustaining the fact that service candidates, who have been selected/undergone PG Degree course under service quota earlier will not be eligible for selection under the service quota for a second time, relaxation has been made with reference to PG Diploma holders under service quota and they are given eligibility to apply for the Post Graduate Degree course in the same specialty in the service quota. This according to the petitioner is unreasonable as the petitioner's seniority in the service quota will be effected.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the first respondent, inter alia, stating that Clause 7.3 of PG prospectus, 2014 provides leniency to PG Diploma holders, in so far as it has been incorporated after deliberations and on necessity basis. It is stated that a candidate who obtained PG Diploma under service quota is eligible to apply in the same specialty alone. Such a decision was taken by the Government to get maximum advantage from service quota candidates who gets admission under the service quota to the State Health Department and thereby their service can be used in public interest. Further it is stated that a specialist doctor in Directorate of Health Service can work only in one specialty and therefore, earmarking another PG seat under the service quota for a candidate, who had already acquired PG Degree in one specialty is a purposeless exercise. Further, if a candidate pursues his PG Degree in the same specialty in which he is having a Diploma, it will only help him in attaining better knowledge and improving his skill in the specialty in which he already had a PG Diploma which is beneficial to the department as well as to the public at large. The respondent also relied upon the statutory right of the Government in prescribing such fixation of quota for service candidates in the light of the statutory provisions under the Kerala Medical Officers' Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and, inter alia, contends that selection of medical officers for admission to PG course of study in the State under the service quota shall be made only under the provisions of the Act and it is invoking Section 5(3) of the Act, the prospectus is being published.
4. Under these circumstances, it is contended that the relaxation given to Diploma holders is a policy decision of the Government which cannot be challenged and the rationale in treating the PG Degree holders as well as Diploma holders in two different categories is justifiable.
5. Having regard to this factual situation, the short question to be considered is whether Clause 7.3 of Ext.P2 prospectus is in any way unreasonable or violates the rights of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. As far as PG Degree holders and Diploma holders are concerned, there is nothing wrong in the Government classifying them as two different classes. Though the admission to PG Degree course as well as Diploma course comes from service quota, Government had thought fit to treat them differently on account of the qualification they have obtained as an in service candidate. By virtue of the aforesaid Clause, Government was only giving one more opportunity to the Diploma holder is to obtain a PG Degree and that too in the same specialty. Under such circumstances, I do not think that the classification made by the Government is in any way bad and there is a reasonable nexus in making the classification with the object to be achieved.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that such classification is unreasonable, since there was no such classification when the 2012 prospectus was published and there was no necessity to have deviated from the said prospectus. Issuance of prospectus is the statutory function of the Government in terms of Section 5(3) of the Act and when the Government exercises that power, it may not be possible for this Court to assume that the said power had been exercised unreasonably. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the Government that a decision has been taken to incorporate the above provision in the prospectus after serious discussions, deliberations etc. Under such circumstances, when the Government has a statutory right to publish a prospectus with reference to two different streams of candidates in the service quota, one cannot contend that it is either discriminatory or unreasonable or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. Petitioner is, apparently, a person in the service of the Government and is entitled to apply either for PG course or for a Diploma course depending upon the eligibility fixed by the authorities concerned. It might be true that while giving a second opportunity to the PG Diploma holders, there might be variation in the seniority position. But, that by itself does not mean that the Government cannot formulate a policy in exercise of their statutory authority.
Under these circumstances, I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to challenge Clause 7.3 of the prospectus to the extent indicated and, accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE