Dr.Bharath N.. v. The Secretary Selection Committee

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:12.05.2009CORAM:THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANIANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESANWRIT APPEAL Nos.763 & 764 of 2007and Writ Petition No.7067 of 2009and MP.No.1,1/07 & MP.1/09.Dr.Bharath N.. Appellant in WA.No.763 of 2007Dr.S.Deebalakshmi.. Appellant in WA.No.764 of 2007K.G.Arun Raj.. Petitioner in WP.No.7067 of 2009vs.1. The Secretary Selection Committee 162 EVR Periyar Salai Kilpauk, Chennai 10.2. The Dental Council of India Regional Office - Arihant Towers Koyambedu, Chennai.3. State of Tamilnadu rep. By Secretary to Government Health Department Fort St.George, Chennai 9... Respondents in both the WAs.763 & 764/071. The Secretary Selection Committee Directorate of Medical Education Chennai 10.2. The Secretary to Government Department of Health Fort St.George, Chennai 9... Respondents in WP.7067 of 2009Writ Appeals are filed against the common order of the learnedsingle Judge made in W.P.Nos.12762 and 13336 of 2007 dated02.05.2007. Petitions under Article 226 of Constitution of Indiapraying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 1strespondent herein to admit the petitioners for MDS Course for theAcademic Year 2007-2008 as per the conditions of the prospectusissued without following rule of reservation in respect of AdmissionFaculties consisting less than 8 seats in respect of each faculty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for issuance of Writ of Declaration as stated therein.For appellants: Mr.K.M.Vijayan,Sr.Counsel /petitioner for M/s.La LawFor respondents: Mr.S.Rajasekar Addl.Govt.Pleader for R.3 in WA and R1 & R2 in WP.COMMON JUDGEMENTP.JYOTHIMANI,J.The writ appeals are directed against the common order passed bythe learned single Judge in W.P.Nos.12762 of 2007 and 13336 of 2007etc., dated 02.05.2007. Under the said order the learned Judge,while dismissing the writ petitions has held that there is nounreasonableness in the roster system sought to be introduced by theimpugned Government Order.2. W.P.No.7067 of 2009 has been filed for declaration thatClause 54(b) and Annexure II relating to Super specialty Five Yearcourse in M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) under the prospectus for admission toPost Graduate degree for the academic year 2009-2010 is invalid in sofar as it provides reservation in the category of Super specialtyPost Graduate Medical course and reservation by roster is contrary toArticle 15 and against the judgment of the Supreme Court and theprovisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994 relating to reservationin admission and also for direction against the respondents to fillup M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) from and out of service candidates as per themerit list and grant admission to the petitioner.3. Since the writ petition is connected with the point that isinvolved in the writ appeals, the writ petition is directed to beposted along with the appeals for a decision.4. The interesting points involved in these cases are, whetherthe roster system is admissible in respect of admission toPostgraduate course as well as Super specialty course in MedicalEducation; whether the concept of reservation can be applied inrespect of Super specialty course and whether the Five yearintegrated M.Ch. course in Neuro Surgery introduced from the academicyear 2009-2010 by the respondents is a super-specialty course or aPost Graduate Medical course.5. It is not in much dispute that the respondents haveintroduced the Five Year M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) course for the firsttime in the State. The prospectus issued by the respondents for theyear 2009-2010 shows that the Five Year M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) courseis a Postgraduate Degree course. The eligibility criteria for FiveYear M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) course are that the candidate should be acitizen of India and should have undergone MBBS course in the Stateof Tamil Nadu and passed the said MBBS degree and completed CRRI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ period on or before 31.03.2009 in the Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medicaluniversity or any other university recognised as equivalent. Theentrance examination for M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) and Postgraduate degreecourses was held on 22.02.2009 among the undergraduate candidates.The maximum mark 100 is divided into two; 90 marks for entranceexamination and 10 marks for experience, including the marks forhilly areas and rural areas. The admission would be effected bycounselling process on the basis of merit by applying the rule ofreservation wherever applicable.6. For the year 2009-2010, number of candidates to be admittedin the five year M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) are four, out of whom two areto be admitted in Madras Medical College, Chennai; one in StanleyMedical College, Chennai and one in Madurai Medical College, Madurai.Out of the sanctioned seats, 50% are offered to All India quotaallotted by the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi andthe remaining are allotted to State quota, however, vacant seatsunder the All India quota will be surrendered for being filled upunder the State quota among merit list candidates following the ruleof reservation.7. It is also stated in the prospectus that 50% seats in eachBranch are reserved for service candidates and the remaining seatsshould go to open category. The relevant clauses in the prospectusissued for the year 2009-2010 are 54(a) and 54(b), which read thus:"54(a). The selection will be made by counselling basedon merit and by applying the rule of reservation followed bythe Government of Tamil Nadu wherever applicable.(b). 50% of seats in each branch are reserved for servicecandidates, in addition to those service candidates selectedin the open category. In case of an odd number of vacancythat vacant seat shall be filled up by consideration of meritamong Service candidates only.Roster method of rule of reservation will be followed ifthe seats are more than 1 and less than 8 in each branch asper G.O.Ms.No.241/dt.29.10.2007 of P & AR (K) Dept. ofGovernment of Tamil Nadu. If the seats are 8 and more, therule of reservation shall be as follows:Open competition ..31%Backward class..30%Most Backward/Denotified..20%Scheduled caste ..18%Scheduled Tribe ..1%Within the 30% reservation for Backward Classes 3.5%reservation will be provided for Muslims."8. On the factual matrix, out of four sanctioned seats for FiveYear M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) course, two are to be admitted from Statequota of which one should be from service candidate and the otherfrom the open category and the remaining two are from the All India https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ quota.9. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.7067 of 2009 is that hebelongs to service category and appeared for the entrance examinationconducted by the respondents and obtained total marks of 69.04 andsecured overall rank 63 and service rank 31. In the counselling thattook place on 03.04.2009, he was offered only M.D. General Medicinethough he is interested in M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) and the petitionerwas denied admission by applying the roster system under Clause 54(b)of the prospectus under which M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) seat under servicecategory is stated to have been reserved exclusively for MBCcandidates alone in the academic year 2009-2010. 10. In respect of the appellants in two appeals before us, theysought for admission in M.D.S. Course for the academic year 2007-2008. Out of the total seats available in the State of Tamil Nadu inM.D.S. Post Graduate Dental course, 50% seats were allotted to AllIndia quota and the remaining seats were earmarked for State quota tobe allotted by the Selection Committee, the Director of MedicalEducation, Chennai. There are seven faculties in MDS Courseconducted by Madras Dental College and in no faculty there were morethan 8 candidates and in fact, it was not more than four candidatesrepresenting non-service candidates. As per Clause 8 of the GeneralInstructions issued for the year 2007-2008, "Rule of reservation is applicable when there areeight seats and more in each discipline"However, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.95 (Health and FamilyWelfare Department) dated 22.3.2007 providing for roster system tobe followed, if there are less than eight seats in each discipline.According to the appellants, if, as per the prospectus, thereservation was not applied, they would have got admitted on meritsand hence, they have filed the respective writ petitions fordirection to admit them to MDS Course in the academic year 2007-08.11. The contention raised by Mr.K.M.Vijayan, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the appellants and the writ petitioner is thatthe prospectus issued by the respondents for the year 2007-08stating that the rule of reservation is applicable when there areeight seats or more in each discipline is binding upon the partiesand in the absence of any rule made by the Government in accordancewith the powers conferred under section 8 of the Tamil Nadu BackwardClasses, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seatsin educational institutions and of Appointments of posts in theServices under the State) Act, 1993 (Act 45/1994), the GovernmentOrder issued in G.O.Ms.No.95 (Health and Family Welfare Department)dated 22.3.2007 applying the rule of reservation even if the numberof seats are less than eight has no statutory force. 11(a). It is also his submission that the roster system whichhas been referred to in the said G.O. for admission in PostgraduateMedical Education is not acceptable because, section 4 of the saidAct (Act 45/94) speaks about the admission on annual basis applying https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the rule of reservation and what is applicable is section 5 whichsays that the appointment is a continuous process and according tohim, the roster system will have no application in respect ofadmission on annual basis and it is applicable where the appointmentis a continuous process. 11(b). It is his further submission that applying the rostersystem for admission, as per G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 22.3.2007 is ultravires. It is his submission that by applying the roster system, aparticular group of communities would be completely denied theirright of participating in the admission process in each year. It ishis further submission that M.Ch Course in Neuro Surgery is conductedas an integrated five year degree course and as a super specialtycourse, it cannot be treated as a mere postgraduate course.According to him, postgraduate M.D. is awarded after completion oftwo years of the course and it is, thereafter admission is made toM.Ch. Course for another three years, and in the present case, byintegrating both the courses, the period of course is increased tofive years and, it would not take away the super specialty characterof M.Ch. Course. He therefore submitted that in respect of superspecialty course, the rule of reservation is not applicable andadmission is to be made only on the basis of merit. It is hissubmission that for admission to M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery), M.B.B.S. cannot be the basic requirement. 12. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondents in the appeals as well as in the writpetition that the roster is only a continuation of existingreservation rule and as far as applicability of the rule ofreservation it is for the authorities to decide from time to time aspermitted by the Supreme Court. It is the further contention of thelearned Additional Government Pleader that G.O.Ms.No.95, dated22.3.2007 was issued in furtherance of the executive functions of theGovernment and therefore, it should be treated as an executiveinstruction. It is his submission that it is not as if when Rulesare not made, the purport of the Act should not be implemented byexecutive instructions and according to him, the G.O.Ms.No.95 dated22.3.2007 is not running contrary to the provisions of the Act. Itis his further submission that simply because M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery)is an integrated five year course, it cannot be treated as a superspecialty course since the basic qualification required is onlyM.B.B.S. Degree and not a postgraduate degree and M.Ch. degree beinga second degree should be treated as a postgraduate degree.13. The learned Judge, while considering the said arguments, hasheld that by applying the roster system, the admission right ofpersons belonging to any community to be considered in the opencategory is not affected. It was further held that by applying theroster system, a particular community may not get a chance foradmission in a particular year, but that community will get thechance in the next year and therefore it will be a carry forward rulethat perpetuates. The learned Judge further held that merely becausesection 4 of Act 45 of 1994 does not provide for roster it does notmean that the Government cannot formulate the policy of roster. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It is on that basis, the learned Judge held that theG.O.Ms.No.95, dated 22.3.2007 cannot be held to be invalid or againstthe provisions of section 4 of the Act 45 of 1994.14. As far as the principle of reservation is concerned, section4 of Act 45 of 1994 provides for reservation of seats in educationalinstitutions and section 5 provides for reservation in appointmentsof posts in the services under the State. For the purpose ofunderstanding the issues involved in this case, it is relevant toextract sections 4 and 5 of the Act 45 of 1994 which are as follows:"4. Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions:(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment,decree, or order of any court or authority, having regard tothe social and educational backwardness of the BackwardClasses of citizens and the persons belonging to the ScheduledCastes and the Scheduled Tribes who constitute the majorityof the total population of the State of Tamil Nadu, thereservation in respect of the annual permitted strength ineach branch or faculty for admission into educationalinstitutions in the State, for the Backward Classes ofcitizens and for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castesand the Scheduled Tribes, shall be sixty-nine per cent.(2) The reservation referred to in sub-section (1) shall,in respect of the persons belonging to the Backward Classes,the Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities, theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, be as hereunder:(a) Backward Classes - Thirty per cent(b)Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities -Twenty Per cent(c) Scheduled Castes - Eighteen Per Cent(d) Scheduled Tribes - One per cent.5. Reservation in appointments or posts in the serviceunder the State.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained inany judgment, decree or order of any court or otherauthority, having regard to the inadequate representation inthe services under the State, of the Backward Classes ofcitizens and the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castesand the Scheduled Tribes, who constitute the majority of thetotal population of the State of Tamil Nadu, the reservationfor appointments or posts in the services under the State,for the Backward Classes of citizens and for the personsbelonging to the Schedules Castes and the Scheduled Tribes,shall be sixty-nine per cent.Explanation.- For the purposes of this Act, "servicesunder the State" includes the services under- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) the Government;(ii) he Legislature of the State;(iii) any local authority;(iv) any corporation or company owned or controlled bythe Government; or(v) any other authority in respect of which the StateLegislature has power to make laws.(2) The reservation referred to in sub-section (1)shall, in respect of the persons belonging to the BackwardClasses, the Most Backward Classes and DenotifiedCommunities, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes,be as hereunder:- (a) Backward Classes - Thirty per cent(b)Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities -Twenty Per cent(c) Scheduled Castes - Eighteen Per Cent(d) Scheduled Tribes - One per cent."15. A reading of the above provisions make it clear that thereservation in educational institutions is different from thereservation in appointment of posts in services under the State. Itis clear from section 4 that the only reservation is applicable forthe obvious reason that the admissions are made every year. Such aclause is not available under section 5 of the Act as the appointmentto the Government service is a continuous process. In fact, theGovernment has prescribed the concept of roster system which wasoriginally 50 point roster and subsequently 100 point roster andpresently 200 point roster with an idea of providing employmentopportunity to all classes of persons like, Backward Classes, MostBackward Classes, Scheduled Classes and Scheduled Tribes andtherefore, the appointment which is a continuous process is madefollowing the roster system. However, in respect of admission toeducational institutions, it is an annual process and whether 100points or 200 points of roster system are followed or not, thepercentage prescribed for each classes of persons should bemaintained. 16. A comparative reading of sections 4 and 5 makes it veryclear that while in the case of educational institutions reservationhas to be followed every year, in the case of appointments inservices the reservation has to be followed as a continuous processby roster not pertaining to a particular year but, as and whenvacancies arise in each of the departments. 17. There is one other difficulty in the roster system for beingfollowed in admission to educational institutions. When admission ison yearly basis, every qualified student is entitled to participatein the admission process, of course, based on the percentage ofreservation. As the roster points are to go to a particularcommunity in a particular year, the applicability of roster system inadmission to educational institutions is not desirable, especially inthe circumstance where very limited number of seats are available,because students belonging to other communities may not get chance in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a particular year and they have to wait for next year, and that wouldnot amount to equal distribution of existing seats every year amongthe qualified students based on the rule of reservation. Further, itis not acceptable that if in any particular year persons belonging toa particular community may not be able to participate in theadmission process they can wait for next year. It would not only bean abuse of the admission process, but would take away the validrights of students in participating in the admission process everyyear. That is not the purport of section 4 of the Act. We are ofthe considered view that the finding of the learned Judge that aparticular class of persons who are denied admission in a particularyear can wait for next year is not the correct position of law.18. The mere postponing the right of qualified students toparticipate in the admission process for next year in effect wouldcause enormous injustice which can never be the purport of any lawincluding the policy of reservation. On the other hand, in thematter of appointment in service, it is, only as and when vacancyarises in a department, the post is filled up and therefore, theroster system is being followed as a continuing process with theintention to give the benefit of reservation policy to allcommunities turnwise. The concept of reservation being the basis forsection 4 and 5 of the Act, the roster can be applicable only toservice matters and that cannot be applied to the admission processin the educational institutions. In such view of the matter, theaction of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner inW.P.No.7067 of 2009 to participate in the selection process for theyear 2009-10 on the ground that in this year as per roster system,the opportunity would only go to candidates belonging to MostBackward Classes is illegal and not permissible in law and alsoopposed to the rule of reservation. 19. Moreover, on the facts of the case in the writ petition, outof four seats, two seats have been handed over to All India quota.The only remaining two seats to be filled up among servicecandidates. By applying roster system it would cause disaster to therule of reservation.20. It is also relevant to point out that section 8 of the Actenables the Government to make Rules for the purpose ofimplementation of various provisions of the Act, but the Governmenthas not framed Rules either regarding admission or appointment.Nevertheless, the intent of section 4 of the Act which contemplatesreservation to Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes at 30%, 20%, 18% and 1% respectively,remains to be enforced. When such legislative mandate prevails, thequestion remains to be seen is whether it is possible for theGovernment to issue an order contrary to section 4 of the Act in theabsence of any Rule made as per the Act.21. When section 4 makes it clear that the percentage ofreservation has to be given effect to based on the annuallypermitted strength in each branch or faculty, the Government Orderin G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 22.3.2007 restricting the application of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reservation only in case the seats are more than eight andintroducing the roster system if the seats are less than eight,certainly runs contrary to section 4 of the Act. Apart from that,the contention that the said G.O.Ms.No.95, dated 22.3.2007 could betreated as executive instruction permissible under Article 162 of theConstitution of India cannot be countenanced, particularly when theGovernment Order runs contrary to the Act 45/1994. Further, thecomparison of the power of Pollution Controlling Authority indeclaring an area as pollution control area which is a distinct actof the Board being a competent authority for the said purpose withthat of the present respondents in issuing the Government Ordertaking away the right of reservation in the matter of admission whenthe seats available are less than the prescribed norm is notacceptable. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in OrissaState (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Board v. Orient PaperMills [(2003) 10 SCC 421] upholding the right of the Board todeclare an area as air pollution control area even in the absence offraming of rules by the State Government is certainly distinct fromthe present case which relates to reservation and when the Actcontemplates reservation process to be adopted annually, it iscertainly not for the Government to issue the G.O.Ms.No.95, dated22.3.2007 taking away the right of reservation where the number ofseats to be filled up in a faculty are less than eight. In such viewof the matter, we are of the considered view that the finding of thelearned Judge in this regard is not correct.22. However, in the writ petitions filed by the appellants, theprayer was to admit them in MDS Course for the academic year 2007-08as per the conditions of the prospectus issued without following therule of reservation when the number of seats sought to be filled upis less than eight in each faculty. It is true that the contents ofthe prospectus are binding on the parties and in the prospectus andgeneral instructions issued for the year 2007-08, in clause-8 it wasspecifically stated that 'rule of reservation is applicable whenthere are eight seats and more in each discipline' thereby meaningthat in case where the seats are less than eight, the rule ofreservation has no application for admission for the year 2007-08.This is equally not in accordance with section 4 of the Act. Theanalogy that is applicable against the roster system which is opposedto section 4 of the Act would equally apply against clause 8 of thegeneral instructions given for the year 2007-08 also. 23. The contention of the learned Additional Government Pleaderthat application of roster system if the seats are less than eightis a policy decision is not acceptable, in the light of section 4 ofthe Act which mandates that the reservation has to be followed in allcases of admission. In such view of the matter, the prayer of thewrit petitioners who are the appellants in the above appeals runscontrary to the provision of section 4 of the Act which does notdistinguish the number of seats for the purpose of application of therule of reservation. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold thatthe appellants' case in the writ petitions cannot be accepted, forthe reason that the rule of reservation should not be given a go-byeven if the number of seats to be filled up were less than eight and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that clause 8 of the general instructions given for the year 2007-08is opposed to section 4 of Act 45/1994. In this view of the matter,the dismissal of the writ petitions by the learned Judge need not beinterfered with. Accordingly, the writ appeals stand dismissed.However, if roster system was followed in admission for the year2007-2008, the same is not permissible in law.24. Now, in respect of admission to M.Ch. Integrated Five YearCourse, for the reasons explained above, the roster system cannot bemade applicable to the admission by virtue of section 4 of Act45/1994 and we are of the view that the denial of participation ofthe petitioner in the counselling for Five Year Integrated M.Ch.Neuro Surgery Course for the year 2009-10 on the above said ground isnot permissible in law. That apart, the contention of the learnedcounsel for the respondents is that separate prospectus has beenissued for super specialty course as well as postgraduate course inmedicine and in respect of the super specialty course, viz., M.Ch.Neuro Surgery, out of four seats, two seats are to be admitted inMadras Medical College, one seat is to be admitted in Stanley MedicalCollege and the remaining one seat is to be admitted in MaduraiMedical College. Further, in the prospectus for Post GraduateDegree/Diploma/MDS 5 Year M.Ch (Neuro Surgery) Courses for the year2009-10, of course, in Annexure-II under M.S. Course category,M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery) is added. The question is, by merely addingM.Ch.Neuro Surgery with M.S. Courses, whether M.Ch. Course ceases tobe a super specialty course. In the absence of any material to showthat the syllabus for M.Ch. Neuro Surgery as stated in the prospectusof super specialty course and the syllabus for Five Year M.Ch.NeuroSurgery Course included as one of the postgraduate courses in theprospectus issued by the respondents are distinct, it is not possibleto accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondentsthat both the courses are different. It is relevant to point outthat including D.M. Course, all other super specialty courses areM.Ch. only. Therefore, it is clear that admission to such superspeciality course as that of M.Ch. Neuro Surgery can be made onlyfrom among the persons who are the Postgraduate holders and merely aperson who has completed graduation in medicine, viz., M.B.B.S. isnot entitled for admission to M.Ch. Course. Accordingly, in ourconsidered view, in the absence of any special circumstance showingthat the syllabi for both the courses are entirely different, it isnot possible to accept the contention that Five Year Integrated M.Ch.Neuro Surgery Course is a postgraduate course and not a superspecialty course.25. Law is well settled that in respect of super specialtycourse, the selection shall be only based on merits. The SupremeCourt in Dr.Sanjay Mehrotra and another vs. G.S.V.M. Medical College,Kanpur and others [A.I.R. 1989 SC 775], while dealing with thereservation of 75% of seats for institutional candidates, held asfollows:"4. According to the High Court, in view of thedecision of this Court in Dr.Pradeep Jain v. Union of India(1984) 3 SCR 942 : (AIR 1984 SC 1420), admission to super https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ speciality courses should be made strictly on the basis ofpresent merit and as no examination was held by the collegeto assess the merits of the candidates, the High Court setaside the admission of the appellants and respondent No.9."26. Therefore, the super specialty course being a specialisedcourse in medicine, merit alone shall be the criterion and not anyother consideration including the communal reservation. In anyevent, on the facts of the case, it is seen that for the servicecandidates only one seat is available and the law is well settledthat reservation cannot be applied if the seat to be filled up isonly one. Therefore, the petitioner in W.P.No.7067 of 2009, havingonly M.B.B.S. degree is not entitled to be considered for M.Ch.NeuroSurgery Course for the year 2009-10. In these circumstances, thewrit appeals and writ petitions are disposed of in the followingterms:(1) W.A.Nos.763 and 764 are dismissed holding that the policyof reservation is applicable for admission even if the number ofseats are less than eight;(2) Roaster system is not applicable for admission ineducational institutions since section 4 of the Act 45 of 1994contemplates admission on annual basis;(3) Clause 8 of the prospectus/General Instructions tocandidates issued by the respondents for the year 2007-08denying reservation in case the seats are less than 8 is setaside; (4) Clause 54(b) of the prospectus for postgraduate degree/diploma/MDS 5 year M.Ch.(Neuro Surgery) courses, 2009-10 is setaside in so far as it relates to roster system of rule ofreservation in cases where the seats are more than one and lessthan eight in each branch;(5) Five Year Integrated M.Ch. Neuro Surgery Course is to betreated as a super specialty course and admission shall be madeonly based on merit without following the rule of reservation.Further, it is made clear that for admission to M.Ch. NeuroSurgery course, the qualification shall not be under graduationin Medicine and any admission made for the year 2009-2010,contrary to the above said ruling stands set aside.(6) W.P.No.7067 of 2009 is ordered accordingly.No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Deputy Registrar / True Copy / Sub.Asst Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ khTo1. The Secretary Selection Committee Directorate of Medical Education, 162 EVR Periyar Salai Kilpauk, Chennai 10.2. The Dental Council of India Regional Office - Arihant Towers Koyambedu, Chennai.3. The Secretary to Government State of Tamilnadu Health Department Fort St.George, Chennai 9.+ 1 CC to M/s.La Law,Advocates,SR.20644 WRIT APPEAL Nos.763&764/07 and WP.No.7067/2009MSM(CO)EM/22.5