Thenmozhi v. State represented by the Secretary to Government, Education Department & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 06-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.12280 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009Thenmozhi rep. By Father andNatural Guardian R.Arulmozhi,4/593-1, Nanjappa Gounder Street,Teacher's Colony,Dharmapuri 636 701... Petitioner.Versus1.State represented by theSecretary to Government,Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Secretary, Selection Committee,Directorate of Medical Education,162, Periyar E.V.r.High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent toselect the petitioner's daughter, namely, Kum.A.Thenmozhi, for theM.B.B.S course for the 2009-2010 Session, applied vide ApplicationNo.5627. For Petitioner : Mr.M.BalachandarFor Respondent : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy Government Advocate (R1 & R2)O R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.2. By consent of both parties, the writ petition is taken up forfinal hearing and disposal. 3. This writ petition has been filed praying for a writ ofmandamus to direct the second respondent to select the petitioner's https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ daughter, A.Thenmozhi (Application No.5627) for the M.B.B.S. Course,for the academic session 2009-2010.4. The petitioner has stated that her daughter, A.Thenmozhi, hadpassed Higher Secondary course conducted by the State Board of SchoolExaminations and had obtained the following marks in the varioussubjects, with a total of 1175 out of 1200. Tamil192 out of 200English188 out of 200Physics199 out of 200Chemistry200 out of 200Biology196 out of 200Mathematics200 out of 2005. It has been further stated that the petitioner's daughter wasshort of the age requirements for writing the 10th standardexaminations. The Director of Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, videproceedings No.5534/C7/2006, dated 11.10.2006, had waived theprescribed age limit and had given consent to the petitioner forwriting the 10th standard examinations. As she had obtained very goodmarks in the Higher Secondary examinations, she had applied for theM.B.B.S. course. She had applied to the second respondent, videApplication No.5627, for admission to the medical course of 2009-2010session.6. It has been further stated that in the general instructionsfound in the prospectus it has been stated that the candidateapplying for the M.B.B.S course should have completed the age of 17years, on or before 31.12.2009, and the evidence thereof should beproduced. The petitioner's daughter falls short of the age limitprescribed by 37 days. However, in the prospectus for the Tamil NaduEngineering admissions for the academic year 2009-2010 such an agelimit has not been prescribed. It has been further stated that theDirector of Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, vide proceedingsNo.5534/C7/2006, dated 11.10.2006, had granted relaxation toR.Thenmozhi, the daughter of the petitioner, to write the 10thstandard examinations. Thereafter, she was permitted to write the 12thstandard examinations, without any hindrance. However, arepresentation, dated 15.6.2009, had been sent to the secondrespondent to consider the relaxation of the age limit for applyingto the M.B.B.S. course. The second respondent had not considered thesaid representation, till date. The Provisional Medical List for theacademic session 2009-2010, for M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses had beenreleased by the second respondent, on 29.6.2009, and it does notcontain the name of the petitioner's daughter, even though she hadscored very high marks in the plus two examinations. Probably theonly reason for not considering the application of the petitioner isthe age factor. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferredthe present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of theConstitution of India. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The main contentions of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that once an order of age relaxation had been issued infavour of the petitioner's daughter, vide proceedings of the Directorof Tamil Nadu Matriculation Schools, vide proceedingsNo.5534/C7/2006, dated 11.10.2006, it is not open to the respondentsto deny the privilege, subsequently, as they are estopped from doingso. When there is no prescribed age limit for applying for Tamil NaduEngineering admissions, there is no good reason for prescribing suchan age limit for the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses. Further, therespondents had not considered the application of the petitioner forthe M.B.B.S. course, arbitrarily, and without considering therepresentation of the petitioner. Even though the daughter of thepetitioner comes from a most backward class community, she has donevery well in the plus two examinations. However, she has been deniedadmission in the M.B.B.S. Course, unfairly and arbitrarily. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentshad submitted based on instructions obtained from the respondents,that there is no provision, either in the prospectus for theadmission of students in the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for the 2009-2010 session, or in the other rules and regulations applicable tosuch admissions, empowering the respondents to relax the age limitprescribed for admission in the said courses. In the instructionsissued to the candidates, it has been clearly stated that thecandidate should have completed the age of 17 years, on or before 31stDecember, 2009. Such relaxation of the age limit, even if it had beengranted to permit the petitioner's daughter to write the 10th standardexaminations, it cannot be a precedent to be followed at the stage ofher admission to the M.B.B.S. course. The issue of estoppel would notarise in such matters. If such a relaxation is granted it would causea lot of confusion and chaos in the admission process. In suchcircumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merits and therefore,it is liable to be dismissed.9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on aperusal of the records available, this Court is of the consideredview that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason forgranting the reliefs, as prayed for in the writ petition. It cannotbe said that the respondents are duty bound to grant relaxation ofthe age limit for the petitioner's daughter for applying to theM.B.B.S. Course, for the 2009-2010 academic session, based on thereason that she had been permitted to write the 10th standardexaminations by granting relaxation of the age limit. Further, itcannot be held that the age limit fixed for entry into the medicalcourse is arbitrary. It cannot be said that relaxation of age limitought to be granted to the petitioner's daughter, for beingconsidered for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course, merely for thereason that she had been permitted to write the 10th standardexaminations based on the proceedings of the the Director of Tamil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nadu Matriculation Schools, vide proceedings No.5534/C7/2006, dated11.10.2006. Further, the issue of estoppel would not arise in thepresent case as the respondents had not granted the relaxationapplicable to all future contingencies, by way of their previousproceedings. In such circumstances, it is clear that there is nomerit in the writ petition. Hence, it stands dismissed. No cost.Consequently, connected M.P is closed. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1. The Secretary Education Department,Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2.The Secretary, Selection Committee,Directorate of Medical Education,162, Periyar E.V.r.High Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.+1 cc to Mr.M.Balachander, Advocate, SR.No.29501Writ Petition No.12280 of 2009KS {CO}TP/8.7.2009.