Login
  • Bookmark
  • PDF
  • Share
  • CaseIQ

Dr. Prasanth U.T v. The Director Of Health Services & Ors.

Kerala High Court
Jan 30, 2004
Judgment
Subsequent
References
CaseIQ
Case Information
CITATION CODES
citation codes
CASE NO.

W.P(C) No. 19247 of 2003(N)

ATTORNEY(S)

For the Appellant: N.N. Sugunapalan, Advocate.

For the Respondent: D.P. Renu, Government Pleader.

JUDGES

Cyriac Joseph

A. Lekshmikutty, JJ.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...
Smart Summary (Beta)

Judgment Summary — Cyriac Joseph, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The matters concern reservation of seats under the Difficult Rural Area ("DRA") quota for Post Graduate Medical courses in Kerala. The Government introduced the concept of DRA service in prospectuses and issued a series of Government Orders (G.O.s) in 1996–2003 identifying and revising lists of Rural Areas and Difficult Rural Areas and prescribing how service in those areas should be counted for Post Graduate admissions. A Committee was constituted to define and review the DRA list; provisional lists were published, objections considered, and a revised list was published by G.O(P) No. 70/2003.H & FWD dated 09-04-2003, which added 32 stations.

Several writ petitions and an appeal challenged the additions and administrative directions. Petitioners sought quashing of the 09-04-2003 Government Order (Ext. P2), directions that only service after inclusion of a station be counted (or that prior service be counted, depending on the petition), increase in DRA seats to match earlier ratios, and clarification or redress of seniority lists. The Director of Health Services filed a counter affidavit defending the additions. The Court heard the consolidated matters and delivered this common judgment disposing of multiple petitions and an appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the addition of 32 new stations to the list of Difficult Rural Areas by G.O(P) No. 70/2003 (dated 09-04-2003) was illegal and subject to judicial scrutiny.
  2. Whether this Court should prescribe norms or criteria for identifying Difficult Rural Areas or otherwise interfere with the executive's policy decisions on reservation and identification of DRA stations.
  3. Whether the distribution of Health Service quota seats among Seniority Service quota, Rural Service quota and Difficult Rural Area quota is illegal, and whether the Court can direct the Government to increase DRA quota seats to match a prior ratio (1999).
  4. Whether service rendered by a candidate at a station prior to that station's inclusion in the list of Difficult Rural Areas can be counted for determining length of service in Difficult Rural Areas for DRA quota admissions.
  5. Whether the Government's clarification (that G.O(P) No. 70/2003 applies to academic year 2003–2004) and the modified provisional seniority list of DRA candidates for 2003 were legally objectionable.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • The petitioners (including Assistant Surgeons) contended they had completed the required minimum DRA service (two years) and therefore qualified for DRA quota consideration.
  • They alleged that G.O(P) No. 70/2003 unlawfully and improperly added 32 stations (Ext. P2 / Ext. P3), some of which were not legitimately "difficult", and that the list contained factual errors and was vitiated.
  • They argued that service rendered at a station prior to that station's inclusion in the DRA list should not be counted (or, in some petitions, contested the opposite view)—petitioners sought clarity and relief concerning whether retrospective counting was permissible.
  • They complained that despite the increase in DRA stations, the Government had not proportionately increased the number of DRA quota seats and alleged lack of transparent norms for distributing Health Service quota seats among the three categories.
  • One petitioner (W.P(C) No. 35566/2003) sought counting of his service at a station (Chimminy Dam) even though much of that service pre-dated the station's inclusion in the DRA list, and challenged the applicability of the G.O. to the 2003–2004 admissions and his seniority ranking.

Respondent / Government Arguments

  • The Director of Health Services (respondent) defended and justified the addition of 32 new stations in the DRA list by reference to the Committee process and the Government Orders approving that list.
  • The Government's position (implicit in the material) was that the Committee followed a prescribed process—provisional list, invitation for objections, consideration of district medical officers' remarks, and finalisation—and that the revised list was accordingly valid.
  • The Government maintained administrative discretion over reservation policy, identification of DRA stations, and distribution of quota seats among categories.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded issue by issue and explained its reasoning as follows:

  1. Legality of adding 32 stations (G.O(P) No. 70/2003): the Court reviewed the administrative process leading to the revised list—constitution of a Committee, preparation of a provisional list, invitation for objections, consideration of objections and district medical officers' remarks, finalisation by the Committee on 18-01-2003, and Government approval on 09-04-2003. Given this process, the Court held that the revised list could not be subjected to further judicial scrutiny by the High Court: the Court lacks the expertise to sit in judgment over such administrative compilations and recommended that aggrieved persons should approach the Government for redress. Accordingly, the challenge to the revised list was rejected.
  2. Whether the Court should prescribe norms/criteria for identifying DRA stations: the Court characterised the prescription of norms, reservation of seats, and identification of DRA stations as matters of policy and administrative function of the executive. It held that such matters are not for the Court to determine unless the Government's action is arbitrary, illegal or mala fide. The material before the Court did not show arbitrariness, illegality or mala fides; therefore the prayer for judicially prescribed norms or criteria was rejected (without prejudice to parties' right to approach the Government).
  3. Distribution and quantum of DRA quota seats: the Court observed that allocation of seats among categories is within Government discretion and that the Court would not interfere with such administrative decisions under Article 226 in the absence of shown arbitrariness or illegality.
  4. Counting service prior to inclusion of a station in the DRA list: the Court analysed the purpose of the DRA quota (to attract doctors to serve in remote/difficult areas) and concluded that only service rendered after inclusion of a station in the DRA list can be considered for determining length of service for DRA quota admissions. The Court explained that counting prior service would risk misuse and favouritism (e.g., retrospective inclusion to benefit particular candidates) and therefore be improper. On this basis, the Court found Government letter No. 20851.S3/2001 H & FWD dated 28-05-2001 (Ext. P4 / Ext. P7 in some proceedings), which had directed preparation of seniority lists irrespective of whether service was before or after notification, to be liable to be set aside. The Government was directed to count only post-inclusion service for DRA quota seniority.
  5. Challenge to applicability of G.O(P) No. 70/2003 to academic year 2003–2004 and the modified provisional seniority list (W.P(C) No. 35566/2003): the Court found no merit or logical basis in that petitioner's contentions from the pleadings and submissions and described that petition as misconceived; it was dismissed.

Holding and Implications

The Court disposed of the consolidated matters in specific operative terms. The core rulings and their direct consequences are set out below.

Core Rulings

  • W.P(C) No. 35566/2003 is dismissed. The petition challenging the applicability of the 09-04-2003 order to 2003–2004 admissions and the modified seniority list was rejected.
  • W.A. No. 2957/2002 is allowed. The Single Judge's dismissal of O.P. No. 1234/2001 was set aside to the limited extent of quashing Government letter No. 20851.S3/2001 H & FWD dated 28-05-2001 (Ext. P7 / Ext. P4) and directing that only service rendered after inclusion of a station in the DRA list shall be counted for determining length of DRA service for admission purposes.
  • W.P(C) Nos. 23058/2003 and 19247/2003 are allowed in part. The Government is directed that service rendered at a station prior to its inclusion in the DRA list shall not be counted for determining length of service for DRA quota admissions. Other prayers in those writ petitions are rejected.
  • Admissions already made shall not be affected by this judgment.
  • The Court directed that any aggrieved party may submit representations to the Government regarding inclusion/exclusion of stations, norms/criteria, or seat distribution on or before 31.03.2004; the Government was to consider and pass orders on such representations before 1 May 2004.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on parties: The principal practical effect is that only service performed after a station's formal inclusion in the Difficult Rural Areas list will count for seniority and DRA quota admissions; the Government letter that mandated counting irrespective of pre- or post-notification service has been quashed. Specific petitions were dismissed or allowed only to the extent indicated above.
  • Scope of judicial relief and policy: The Court emphasised deference to the executive on policy matters (identification of DRA stations and seat distribution) and declined to prescribe norms or interfere with the Government's administrative choices absent evidence of arbitrariness, illegality or mala fides.
  • Broader precedent: The opinion did not set out any new detailed legal test beyond applying the established principle of non-interference in bona fide administrative policy decisions; the judgment limited judicial intervention where the administrative process (Committee review, objections, district officer input, government approval) had been followed. The opinion itself does not declare the establishment of a new legal precedent beyond its holdings in the consolidated matters.

If a particular section above was not populated with party arguments, cited precedents, or other details, that omission reflects the absence of such information in the provided opinion.

Show all summary ...

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

Cyriac Joseph, J.:— All the cases relate to reservation of seats under the Difficult Rural Area (for short “DRA”) quota for the Post Graduate Medical courses. Hence these cases are being disposed of through a common judgment.

2. It is necessary to state the background in which the Government decided to reserve seats under the DRA quota for the Post Graduate Medical courses. The government was concerned about the lack of willingness of doctors to work in remote rural areas in the State. In order to attract doctors to work in such remote rural areas, the concept of DRA service as distinct from Rural Area Service was introduced in the Prospectus for Post Graduate admission. In G.O (MS) 269/96.H & FWD dated. 06-07-1996 and G.O (MS) 57/97.H & FWD dated 29-02-1997 the Government identified ‘Rural Areas’ and ‘Difficult Rural Areas’ for regulating reservation of seats for Medical Post Graduate admission. It was also stated that one year service in the Difficult Rural Areas would be counted as three years for the calculation of Rural Area Service in the Post Graduate admission 1996. It was also mentioned in the prospectus that the Difficult Rural Areas were in the four districts of Idukki, Wayanad, Palakkad and Kasargod. It was in consultation with the Director of Health Services that the Government identified the Difficult Rural Areas in the above four districts and issued the list in G.O (MS) 269/96.H & FWD dated 06-07-1996. The said Govt. Order was challenged before the High Court in O.P No. 6135/1996. The High Court quashed the Government order and directed that the admissions should be made considering the rural areas in all the districts of the State as a class. Complaints were also received from doctors working in the different parts of the State and from the Kerala Govt. Medical Officers Association stating that the decision about Ordinary Rural Areas and Difficult Rural Areas was not correct and that it required review. Discussions were held with the representatives of the Kerala Govt. Medical Officers Association on the grievance raised by them about the Post Graduate admission system. Based on the conclusion arrived at the meeting held with the Kerala Govt. Medical Officers Association and in view of the directions of the High Court, Government issued G.O (MS) 217/97.H & FWD dated 22-07-1997 prescribing the guidelines for regulating admission to Medical Post Graduate Courses. As decided in the meeting with the Kerala Government Medical Officers Association a Committee was constituted to evolve and recommend the criteria for the declaration of Rural Areas. The Committee met three times and deliberated the criteria to be followed in selecting areas to be identified as “Rural Areas” and submitted a report to the Government. Based on the recommendations of the Committee, Government published a provisional list of Rural Areas as per G.O(P) 200/98.H & FWD dated 17-07-1998 calling for objections. The Kerala Government Medical Officers Association requested the Government to reconsider the list of Rural Areas notified in the said Government Order and to classify the areas as “Difficult Rural Areas”. Accordingly an G.O(P) 271/98.H & FWD dated 19-08-1998 was issued correcting the term “Rural Areas” referred to in the earlier Government Order as “Difficult Rural Areas”. After considering the objections received the Committee submitted to Government a final list of Difficult Rural Areas. Government examined the recommendations of the Committee and found that the recommendations of the Committee were in accordance with the directions of the High Court. Hence the Government approved and published the Difficult Rural Areas for Post Graduate Admission from 1999 onwards. As per G.O(P) 240/99.H & FWD dated 21-06-1999, the Director of Medical Education was directed to take necessary action to issue the said list of Difficult Rural Areas as a separate corregendum to Annexure 7 of the Prospectus for the Medical Post Graduate Courses 1999. By Government letter No. 20851.S3/2001.H & FWD dated 28-05-2001, the Director of Health Services was requested to prepare the seniority list of candidates for the Difficult Rural Area quota based on the length of service of the incumbents in Difficult Rural Areas, irrespective or the fact whether it was prior or after the issue of the notification. In the meanwhile Government had issued G.O(P) 259/99.H & FWD dated 29-06-1999, G.O (P) 382/99.H & FWD dated 09-09-1999 and G.O(P) 484/99.H & FWD dated 16-12-1999 regarding the list of Difficult Rural Areas. As per G.O(P) 2167/2001.H & FWD dated 09-08-2001 a Committee was constituted by the Government to review the list of Difficult Rural Areas. After detailed deliberations the Committee prepared a provisional list containing institutions to be deleted from and included in the existing list. The provisional list prepared by the Committee was published vide G.O(P) 101/2002.H & FWD dated 29-04-2002. Objections, if any, against the provisional list were required to be submitted Within 30 days from the date of publication of the provisional list. On publication of the said provisional list a lot of objections and suggestions, both for deletion and for inclusion of certain areas, were received. The, Committee considered the objections and suggestions' received. It was then decided, after detailed discussions, that the remarks of the District Medical Officers concerned should be obtained on the proposals for inclusion and deletion. Thereupon, the District Medical Officers concerned of Kannur, Wayanad, Kozhikode, Palakkad, Trissur, Malappuram and Idukki were addressed. Places coming under their jurisdiction alone were proposed for deletion and addition at that stage. The District Medical Officers responded with their suggestions and recommendations. The recommendations were considered by the Committee at its meeting held on 18-01-2003. On the basis of the parameters accepted by the Committee, the Committee scrutinised the list of Difficult Rural Areas and considered the suggestions/recommendations received from the Department, individuals, institutions and Associations. After detailed study, the Committee recommended the names of the institutions to be included/deleted from the existing list. The recommendations of the Committee were examined by the Government and the Government approved and published the revised list of Difficult Rural Areas vide G.O (P) No. 70/2003.H & FWD dated 09-04-2003. A few Medical Post Graduate seats are reserved for Assistant Surgeons serving in Health and Family Welfare Department. They fall under three groups: (i) Health Service quota (ii) Leprosy Service quota and (iii) Tuberculosis Service quota. Seats available in Health Service quota are distributed among three categories viz. (i) Difficult Rural Area quota (ii) Rural Service quota and (iii) Seniority in Service quota. The rank lists for admission to these categories are prepared based on the length of service of applicant doctors in the respective areas. The dispute in the cases under consideration relates to admission to the seats in the Difficult Rural Areas quota. A candidate is eligible to be considered in the Difficult Rural Area quota only if he has a minimum service of two years in the Difficult Rural Area.

3. The petitioners in W.P(C) No. 23058/2003 claim that they have worked in the Difficult Rural Areas for more than two years and hence they are qualified to apply for Medical Post Graduate admission in the Difficult Rural Areas quota. According to them as per G.O(P) No. 70/2003.H & FWD dated 09-04-2003 fundamental changes were made in the existing criteria for identifying “Difficult Rural Areas and 32 more stations were added to the list of Difficult Rural Areas. A true copy of the said Government Order has been produced as Ext. P2 and a list of 32 newly added stations has been produced as Ext. P3. They allege that underserving stations have been added to the list of Difficult Rural. Areas and that Ext. P2 list is vitiated by factual errors. It is also alleged that the petitioners' right for admission in the DRA quota were adversely affected by such illegal addition of new stations. The petitioners are also aggrieved by Ext. P4 Government letter No. 20851/83/2001.H & FWD dated 28-05-2001 in which the Director of Health Services was directed to prepare the seniority list of candidates in the Difficult Rural Areas quota based on the length of service of the incumbents in Difficult Rural Areas irrespective of the fact whether it was prior to or after the issue of the notification. It is contended by the petitioners that only the service rendered by a candidate after the inclusion of an area in the list of Difficult Rural Areas can be considered for determining the length of service in the Difficult Rural Areas and that the service rendered prior to such inclusion cannot be taken into account. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the action of the Government in not increasing the number of seats in the DRA quota despite the increase in the number of DRA stations. It is alleged that no norms are followed in the distribution of Health Service quota seats between seniority in service quota, Rural Service quota and Difficult Rural Area quota. Hence the petitioners have prayed for quashing Ext. P2 Government Order dated 09-04-2003 by which the revised list of Difficult Rural Areas was approved and published. They have also prayed for direction to the respondents not to take any steps affecting the existing seniority of the petitioners and similarly placed DRA doctors in the matter of Medical Post Graduate admission under the DRA quota. They further pray for a direction to the respondents to increase the number of DRA quota seats for Medical Post Graduate Admission appropriately and sufficiently to match the DRA Station/DRA quota seat ratio of 1999 admissions.

4. The petitioner in W.P(C) No. 19247/2003 is an Assistant Surgeon in the Public Health Department and he is an applicant for admission to the Medical Post Graduate course. He challenges the addition of 32 new stations in the list of Difficult Rural Areas vide G.O(P) No. 70/2003.H & FWD dated 09-04-2003. It is contended that the Government committed a mistake by adding more stations to the list of Difficult Rural Areas. According to the petitioners the additional 32 stations were added without conducting any inspection by the Committee constituted for the purpose. It is alleged that some of the stations now declared as Difficult Rural Areas have no lack of facility to make them eligible to be treated as Difficult Rural Areas. It is contended that the addition of new stations should not be given retrospective effect in the sense that the service rendered at such stations before the inclusion of the stations in the list of Difficult Rural Areas shall not be taken into account for determining the length of service of a candidate in the Difficult Rural Area.

5. The petitioner W.P(C) No. 35566/2003 had worked at Government Dispensary. Chimminy Dam which was included in the list of Difficult Rural Areas as per the Government order dated 09-04-2003. His period of service at Government Dispensary, Chimminy Dam was from 12-07-1998 to 14-08-2002. His contention is that his service at the Government Dispensary, Chimminy Dam should be counted for determining the length of service at Difficult Rural Areas despite the fact that his service at Governmen Dispensary, Chimminy Dam was prior to the inclusion of the place in the list of Difficult Rural Areas. He is aggrieved by the clarification containe in the Government letter No. 22551/83.H & FWD dated 18-06-2003 that G.O(P) No. 70/2003.H & FWD dated 09-04-2003 will apply to admissions for the academic year 2003-2004. He has submitted Ext. P7 appeal dated 11-08-2003 before the Director of Health Services, Thiruvananthapuram against his ranking in the modified provisional list of candidates who have applied for Medical Post Graduate Admission under Difficult Rural Area quota 2003. The petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to select him for admission to Post Graduate Course in Medicine under Difficult Rural Area quota and also for a direction to the third respondent Director of Health Services to dispose of Ext. P7 appeal.

6. The appellant in Writ Appeal No. 2957/2002 was the petitioner in O.P No. 1234/2002 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The challenge in the said original petition was against Ext. P7 Government letter dated 28-05-2001 directing the Director of Health Services to prepare the list of Difficult Rural Area quota candidates based on the length of service of the incumbents in Difficult Rural Areas irrespective of the fact whether it was prior to or after the issue of the notification. Apart from praying to quash Ext. P7, the petitioner also prayed for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to prepare the list of candidates taking into consideration only the service rendered during the period when the stations were declared as Difficult Rural Areas. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the original petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition the writ appeal has been filed.

7. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Director of Health Services in W.P(C) No. 19247/2003. In the said counter affidavit, the addition of 32 new stations in the list of Difficult Rural Areas as per G.O(P) No. 70/2003.H & FWD dated 09-04-2003 has been defended and justified.

8. In the light of the pleadings in these cases and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the addition of new 32 stations in the list of Difficult Rural Areas as per G.O 70/2003.H & FWD dated 09-04-2004 (Ext. P2 in W.P(C) No. 23058/2003) is illegal or not. It is clear from the Government Order that a Committee was constituted by the Government to review-the list of Difficult Rural Areas identified and published by the Government earlier. After detailed deliberations, the Committee prepared a provisional list of institutions to be deleted from the existing list and to be included in the existing list. The provisional list prepared by the Committee was published inviting objections. A lot of objections and suggestions, for deletion and inclusion of certain areas, were received. The Committee considered the objections and suggestions and after detailed discussions decided to obtain remarks of the District Medical Officers concerned on the proposals for inclusion and deletion, Thereupon, the District Medical Officers of Kannur, Wayanad, Kozhikode, Palakkad, Trissur, Malappuram and Idukki were addressed as places coming under their jurisdiction alone were proposed for deletion and addition at that stage. The District Medical Officers responded with their suggestions and recommendations. After considering the said suggestions and recommendations the Committee finalised its recommendations on 18.01.2003 The Government examined the recommendations of the Committee and approved and published the revised list of Difficult Rural Areas as per the Government Order dated 09-04-2003. In our view, the revised list of Difficult Rural Areas approved and published by the Government as per the Government Order dated 09-04-2003 cannot be subjected to any further scrutiny and review by this Court. This Court has no expertise or competence to sit in judgment over the preparation of the list made by the Government on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Government for the purpose. If at all any persons is aggrieved by the addition of any new station in the revised list of Difficult Rural Areas he should approach the Government for redressal of such grievance. Hence the challenge against the revised list of Difficult Rural Areas appended to G.O(P) No. 70/2003.H & FWD dated 9.4.2003 is rejected.

9. The next question is whether this Court should prescribe the norms of criteria for identifying Difficult Rural Areas as requested by some of the petitioners. Whether seats should be reserved for Assistant Surgeons who have served in Difficult Rural Areas and what should be the norms or criterial for identifying Difficult Rural Areas for the said purpose are matters of policy. It is the administrative function of the executive Government to reserve seats under DRA quota, and to prescribe the norms or criteria for identifying Difficult Rural Areas. It is not the function of the Court. Only if the action of the Government is shown to be arbitrary or illegal or malafide, the decision of the Government in such matters can be interfered with by the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In these cases sufficient materials have not been placed before the Court to enable the Court to come to the conclusion that the norms or criteria prescribed by the Government are arbitrary or illegal or malafide. Hence the prayer for prescribing norms or criteria or guidelines for identifying Difficult Rural Areas is rejected without prejudice to the right of the parties to approach the Government for redressal of their grievance, if any, about the existing norms or criteria.

10. The next question is whether the distribution of Health Service quota seats among Seniority Service quota, Rural Service quota and Difficult Rural Areas quota is illegal and whether this Court can direct the respondents to increase the number of DRA quota seats properly and sufficiently to match the ratio which existed between DFA stations and DRA quota seats in 1999. According to the petitioners in W.P(C) No. 23058/2003, instead of increasing the number of DRA quota seats in proportion to the increase in the number of DRA stations the Government have decreased the number of DRA quota seats. But we are of the view that it is for the Government to decide whether seats should be reserved under the DRA quota and if so, how many seats should be distributed among the Seniority Service quota, Rural Service quota and Difficult Rural Service quota. This court will not be justified in interfering with such matters in exercise of the powers under Art. 226 of the constitution of India.

11. The next question to be considered is whether the service rendered by a candidate at a station when it was not included in the list of Difficult Rural Areas can be taken into account to determine the length of service in Difficult Rural Areas consequent on the inclusion of that station ill the list of Difficult Rural Areas. Having regard to the concept and background of Difficult Rural Area quota and the object for which seats are reserved in the DRA quota, the service rendered by a person at a station when it was not included in the list of Difficult Rural Areas cannot be taken into account for determining the length of his service in the Difficult Rural Areas. Only the service rendered after the inclusion of the station in the list of Difficult rural Areas can be considered for determining the length of service in the Difficult Rural Areas. There is no illegality, injustice or unfairness in taking such a view since the person was not made to work at that station giving him any hope or promise to consider his service at that station for any weightage or preference for admission to the Medical Post Graduate courses. On the other hand, if service rendered at a particular station prior to its inclusion in the list of Difficult Rural Areas is allowed to be taken into account to determine the length of service in the Difficult Rural Areas for the purpose of admission to Medical. Post Graduate courses, it will lead to misuse and favouritism. It will be possible for the persons in power to include a particular station in the list of Difficult Rural Areas in order to favour a particular candidate who had occasion to work in that particular station in the past. Hence it will be illegal, unjust, unfair and improper to give any retrospective effect to the inclusion of a particular station in the list of Difficult Rural Areas. In this view of the matter, the Government letter No. 20851.S3/2001 H & FWD dated 28.05.2001 (Ext. P4 in WP(C) No. 23058/2003 and Ext. P7 in O.P No. 1234/2002) is liable to be set aside and the Government is liable to be directed that the service rendered by a candidate at a particular station prior to its inclusion in the list of Difficult Rural Areas shall not be taken into account for determining the length of service of the candidate in Difficult Areas for the purpose of admission to DRA quota seats. The only remaining question to be considered is whether there is any merit in the grievance of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 35566/2003 against the clarification contained in Government letter dated 18.06.2003 that G.P(P) No. 70/2003.H & FWD dated 9.4.2003 will apply to admissions for the academic year 2003-2004 and also against the modified provisional seniority list of candidates under DRA quota, 2003. From the pleadings in the petition or from the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner we are not able to see any logic or merit in the contentions of the petitioner. The said writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the light of the above discussion, the above mentioned cases are disposed of in the following terms.

(i) W.P(C) No. 35566/2003 is dismissed.

(ii) W.A No. 2957/2002 is allowed and the judgment in O.P No. 1234/2001 is set aside. The said original petition stands allowed only to the extent of quashing Ext. P7 Government letter No. 20851.S3/20017 H & FWD dated 28.05.2001 and directing the Government that only the service rendered by a candidate at a particular station after its inclusion in the list of Difficult Rural Areas shall be taken into account to determine the length of service of the candidate in the Difficult Rural Areas for the purpose of admission to DRA quota seats.

(iii) W.R (C) Nos. 23058/2003 and 19247/2003 are allowed only to the extent of directing the Government that service rendered by a candidate at a particular station prior to its inclusion in the list of Difficult Rural Areas shall not be taken into account for determining the length of service in Difficult Rural Areas for the purpose of admission to DRA quota seats. Other prayers in the said writ petitions are rejected.

(iv) The admissions already made shall not be affected by this judgment.

(v) If any of the parties has got any grievance about the inclusion of any station in the list of Difficult Rural Areas or the exclusion of any, station from the list of Difficult Rural Areas or about the norms or criteria followed by the Government for identifying the Difficult Rural Areas or about the distribution of Health Service Quota seats among seniority in Service quota, Rural Service Quota and Difficult Rural Area quota, he may submit appropriate representation to the Government on or before 31.03.2004 and if any such representations are received by the Government, they shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Government on such representations before 1st May, 2004.

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

x

Alert

Please log in or sign up for a free trial to access this feature.
Sign Up Login
x