K.T.SANKARAN,J Though there are four petitioners in the writ petition, it is submitted that in view of the subsequent developments, it is necessary only to consider the case of the first petitioner. 2. The first petitioner applied for admission to the Post Graduate Dental Course (MDS) in Self Financing Dental Colleges as well as Government Dental Colleges. The first petitioner did not get admission in the first and second round of counselling for the Government Colleges. She got admission in the third round of allotment at Royal Dental College, Chalisseri, Palakkad. Subsequently, as per Ext.R3(d) order dated 18.6.2014 passed by the Supreme Court in I.A.No.15 of 2014 in WP(C)No.433 of 2013, permission was granted to fill up the vacancies in Government Dental Colleges. The candidates in the All India quota were allowed to exercise their choice by way of extended 3rd round of counselling. This process was directed to be completed by 27.6.2014. It was made clear in Ext.R3(d) order that since the commencement of the academic sessions is contemplated on 30.6.2014 for the academic year 2014-2015, the States were permitted to fill up the vacancies that may result from the All India quota not being utilised. The sum and substance of the contention raised by the first petitioner is that since she has opted for admission at Government Colleges as well, she would be entitled to the benefit of Ext.R3(d) order passed by the Supreme Court. But in view of certain clauses in the notification dated 28.6.2014, issued by the Government of Kerala (Ext.P2) as well as in the notification dated 05.07.2014 (Ext.P3), she would be precluded from exercising the option. Therefore those clauses have been challenged in this writ petition.
3. The reliefs prayed for in the writ petition are the following:-
“(ia)to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the following clause in Ext.P2:
“Candidates who have already taken admission in a SFDC have to produce no objection certificate from the college to participate in this counselling”. (ib) to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the following clause in Ext.P3:-
“Candidates who have already taken admission in a SFDC's will not be permitted to participate in this counselling as the last date for admission under this category was 30.6.2014, 5.00 PM”.
(ic)To declare that the petitioners are eligible to participate in the allotment/admission process even without producing NOC as mandated in Ext.P2;
(id)To declare that the impugned clauses in Exts.P2 and P3 as indicated in prayer No.(ia) and any such clause in any agreements between the Government and the Self Financing Colleges are bad in law, unjust, illegal and arbitrary;
(ie) To declare that the petitioners are eligible to get allotment and admission for MDS seats on the basis of their rank and on the basis of the option exercised by them on 30.6.2014 or of any subsequent dates despite their earlier statement and admission in other self financing colleges;
(if) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give allotment/admission to the petitioners in the specialities/colleges as opted by them on the basis of their rank and order in merit;
(ig) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to rearrange the allotment by granting the allotment and admission to the petitioners in the respective specialities and colleges as sought by them.
i) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the allotment process for seats for MDS Government Medical College/Self financing college;
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 4, 5 6 and 7 to provide NOC and to refund the fees paid by the petitioners so as to enable the petitioners to seek admission for MDS course in Government Medical College and Self financing college on the basis of their position in the said ranked list;
iii) To declare that the seats falling in vacant in the event of petitioners leaving the colleges under respondent 4, 5, 6 and 7 can be filled up from the select list prepared by the State if and only if the petitioners are admitted in other Government/Self financing colleges;
iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to permit respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 to fill up their seats falling vacant due to the petitioners relieving the college by taking candidate from the select list prepared by the Government after providing admission to the petitioners in other Government/Self financing Colleges;
v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide admission for the petitioners in the Government Colleges/other self financing colleges after getting NOC, TC and refund of fees from the colleges in which they are now admitted;
vi) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the cases”.
4. The clause under challenge in Ext.P2 is that “candidates who have already taken admission in a SFDC(Self Financing Dental College) have to produce No Objection Certificate from the College to participate in the counselling. The counselling contemplated under Ext.P2 was the counselling which had to take place on 30.6.2014 to fill up the 50% State quota seats under the Self Financing Dental Colleges. The first petitioner had already got admission in the 50% Government quota in a Self Financing Dental College on 23.6.2014 and therefore she had to comply with the aforesaid condition in order to participate in the counselling scheduled to be held on 30.6.2014. There is no case for the first petitioner that she could secure the No Objection Certificate from the Royal Dental College, Palakkad to enable her to participate in the counselling scheduled to be held on 30.6.2014. The impugned clause in Ext.P3 dated 5.7.2014 is that “Candidates who have already taken admission in a SFDC's will not be permitted to participate in this counselling as the last date for admission under this category was 30.6.2014, 5.00 PM”. The counselling contemplated under Ext.P3 was to fill up the State quota seats and seats that were reverted to the State from All India quota as on 04.07.2014. The counselling thereunder was scheduled to be held on 08.07.2014. In view of the aforesaid clause in Ext.P3, the first petitioner could not participate in the counselling scheduled to be held on 08.07.2014.
5. In the writ petition, several interim orders were passed. As per the interim order dated 07.07.2014, the writ petitioners were permitted to exercise their option, purely on a provisional basis. It was made clear that no allotment would be made on the basis of such option. Later, another interim order dated 10.07.2014 was passed, whereunder the provisional allotment made as per the interim order dated 07.07.2014 was considered by the court. Accordingly, it was held that the case need be confined to the first petitioner alone. The Division Bench held that the position obtaining at that time was that a decision would have to be taken as to the candidate who could be alloted the seat for Oral Pathology at Government Dental College, Calicut. The Division Bench directed the Government to allot the seat at Government Dental College, Calicut to the most meritorious among the three persons who exercised their options and whose names were mentioned in the order. Later, it was revealed that the 25th respondent was the most meritorious candidate.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per the option exercised pursuant to the interim order dated 07.07.2014, the petitioner should have been alloted the seat in the Government Dental College since her rank number was 62 as against the 25th respondent whose rank was 86.
7. The learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of the Division Bench decision in Hanna Thasnim V. State of Kerala and others (ILR 2014(2) Kerala 388), the contention put forward by the first petitioner is not maintainable. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that G.O(Rt)No.1992/2014/H & FWD dated 17.6.2014 [(Ext.R3 (a)] was issued on the basis of consensus regarding the fee structure for MDS Course in the discussion held between the Government and Self Financing Dental Colleges. As per Ext.R3 (a), orders were issued regarding the allocation of merit seats in the seven Self Financing Dental Colleges for the academic year 2014-2015, subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the Government order. Based on the agreement executed between the Government on the one hand and the Private Self Financing Colleges mentioned in Ext.R3(d) on the other, Exts.P2 and P3 Government orders were issued wherein the impugned clauses were incorporated. The candidates were well aware that Government quota seats were provided in the Private Self Financing Colleges as per the agreement between the Government and the Private Self Financing Colleges and there would be restriction with respect to the number of counselling. Having got admission in a Private Self Financing Dental College under the Government quota, the first petitioner was not entitled to aspire for further rounds of counselling in the Government Dental Colleges and compete with persons who never opted for Government quota seats in the Private Self Financing Dental Colleges.
8. In Hanna Thasnim's case, similar conditions as contained in Exts.P2 and P3 were upheld and the challenge on the ground of violation of Article 14,16 and 21 were rejected.
It was held thus:-
“ 31. Burden of showing that a classification rests upon an arbitrary and not on a reasonable basis or the discrimination is apparent and manifest is upon the person who impeaches the administrative decision to be violative of the guarantee of equal protection. If any state of facts can be reasonably conceived that would sustain the classification, the existence of that state of facts at the time the law was enacted or decision was taken can be presumed. The above said presumption can be rebutted not only by referring to the contents of law or the administrative decision itself, but also by extraneous evidence. In this case, the fact that the agreement executed between the Government and the Management Consortium of self financing dental colleges enured to the benefit of a large number of students will have to be considered. Those students who willingly opted for self financing colleges along with Government Colleges form a distinct class and those who opted for Government Colleges alone form a different class. This classification is expressly discernible from the terms in Ext.P2 itself. Therefore, we do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or unfair deal in the classification as mentioned above. Hence, we are unable to find that the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India have been violated.
32. The alleged violation of fundamental rights under Article 16 of the Constitution of India also could not be established by the petitioner. Rights under Article 16 of the Constitution are only instances of application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 16 also does not debar a reasonable classification in the matter of appoitment or promotion. Petitioner's apprehension appears to be about the possible future disadvantages that may be attracted due to studying in a self financing college. However, in the absence of establishing any violation of petitioner's fundamental rights, we are of the view that this contention of the petitioner is also unsustainable. Likewise, we do not find any merit in petitioner's contention that her rights under Article 21 have been violated. Upshot of the discussion is that the petitioner cannot claim an allotment to a Government Dental College”.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.25 submitted that respondent No.25 only opted for joining the Government Dental Colleges as she could not afford to study in a Private Self Financing Dental College. It is submitted that respondent No.25 could not afford the fee even in the Government quota seat in a Private Self Financing Dental College which is much higher than the fee payable by a student getting admission in a Government Dental College. It is submitted that rank number in the Entrance Examination alone should not be the criterion in view of the options which are available to the candidates and in view of the availability of Government Colleges as well as Private Self Financing Dental Colleges for admission. It is submitted that a resourceful candidate could opt for admission in Private Self Financing Dental Colleges as well as in Government Colleges and opt to join in any of the Colleges as and when that candidate gets admission. But a candidate who opts for joining only in a Government Dental College would have option only for the limited seats available in the Government Dental Colleges and if the candidate does not get admission in the Government Dental Colleges, she cannot aspire for admission in any other College.
10. The first petitioner having got admission in the Government quota seat in a Private Self Financing Dental College, she cannot aspire for getting admission in a Government Dental College after the cut off date and contrary to the stipulations in Exts.P2 and P3, thereby denying the prospects of the candidates who had opted only for allotment in the Government Dental Colleges. If that is allowed, the candidates who cannot afford to pay the fee in a Self Financing Dental College would be thrown out only on the basis of the rank numbers. We are of the view that the decision in Hanna Thasnim's case squarely covers the case and the first petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE lgk