Kerala High Court
Dennies Paul L vs The State Of Kerala on 13 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 1 2025:KER:60429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1350 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.29792 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE (PO),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011
3 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
KERALA, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
EXAMINATIONS, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, SR.G.P.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.4 IN WPC:
1 DENNIES PAUL.L,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. LOURDA SWAMY, SORAPARA, KOZHIPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN
- 678557
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 2 2025:KER:60429
2 FAIZAL.P.P,
NURSING OFFICER, NMCH, MEDICAL COLLEGE. P.O,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673008
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
SRI.M.G.SREEJITH
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 14.07.2025 ALONG WITH
WA NO.1365 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 13.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 3 2025:KER:60429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1365 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.05.2025 IN WP(C) NO.29792 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DENNIES PAUL L,
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LOURDA SWAMY, SORAPARA, KOZHIPARA, PALAKKAD, PIN -
678557
BY ADVS.
SHRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
KERALA, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
EXAMINATION 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING SHANTHI
NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 4 2025:KER:60429
4 SHRI FAIZAL P P
NURSING OFFICER, NMCH,
MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, KOZHIKKODE, PIN - 673008
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, Sr. G.P.
SRI.M.G SREEJITH
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 14.07.2025 ALONG WITH
WA NO.1350 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 13.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 5 2025:KER:60429
COMMON JUDGMENT "CR"
Muralee Krishna, J.
The appellants in W.A. No.1350 of 2025 are respondents 1
to 3, and the appellant in W.A. No.1365 of 2025 is the petitioner
in W.P.(C)No. 29792 of 2024. These writ appeals are filed under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, by the respective
appellants, challenging the judgment dated 20.05.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in that writ petition. Since the issue to
be decided in these writ appeals is the same, they are heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The writ petitioner, who is working as a Nursing Officer
Grade-I at District Hospital, Palakkad, appeared for the National
Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET), 2024, for admission to the
MBBS course and secured rank No.260988 at the National level
and rank No.19109 in the State level. The 3 rd respondent
Commissioner for Entrance Examination, published Ext.P2
prospectus for admission to the professional degree course for the
year 2024. Clause 5.2.10 (i) of the prospectus provides for the
Allopathy nurse quota for the MBBS course. During previous years
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 6 2025:KER:60429
also, the writ petitioner participated in the entrance examination.
In the rank list published during 2023, he secured rank 17033. In
that year the rank list was published holding nursing quota as a
class. But in the year 2024, a categorised list of nursing quota
candidates has been published by the 3 rd respondent. As per
Ext.P5 final rank list published by the 3 rd respondent, the writ
petitioner was placed in the third place, though he secured higher
marks than the candidates placed above him. Challenging the
categorisation within the nursing quota as a violation of Article 14
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner approached this Court
with the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the following reliefs:
“i) to declare that priority mentioned in Clause 5.2.10(i) of
Ext. P2 is highly illegal, arbitrary and liable to be struck
down;
ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext. P2
and to quash priority mentioned in Clause 5.2.10(i) of the
same;
iii) to declare that priority can be applied only when ranks
of the BSc. (Nursing) candidate and GNM candidate are
equal;
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 7 2025:KER:60429
iv) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to get the seat
for MBBS (2024) under Allopathy Nursing quota as he
secured high mark among other candidates under the said
quota;
v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to allot a
seat for MBBS to the petitioner under Allopathy Nursing
quota as he secured high mark among the candidates in the
said quota;
vi) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5
and to quash the original of the same to the extent it push
back the petitioner to the 3rd place”
3. The learned Single Judge after considering the rival
submissions made at the Bar, and the pleadings in the writ
petition, by holding that the order of priority will come into play
only when candidates have secured the equal ranks, allowed the
writ petition directing the appellants in W.A. No.1350 of 2025 to
admit the writ petitioner to the MBBS course against a seat that
may be vacant in respect of 2024 NEET examination and if no such
seat is vacant, create a supernumerary seat to admit the writ
petitioner and allow him to take up the study of second semester
onwards. The writ petitioner was further directed to pay the entire
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 8 2025:KER:60429
fees for both semesters. When respondents 1 to 3 in the writ
petition filed W.A. No.1350 of 2025 challenging the directions
issued by the learned Single Judge, the writ petitioner filed W.A.
No.1365 of 2025, contending that since the admission for the year
2024 was closed by 30.09.2024, the direction to admit him in that
year is impractical and not implementable. He contended that the
relief ought to have been moulded by the learned Single Judge to
give admission in the year 2025.
4. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for
appellants in W.A. No.1350 of 2025, who are the respondents 1 to
3 in W.A. No.1365 of 2025 and the learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent in W.A. No.1350 of 2025, who is the appellant in W.A.
No.1365 of 2025. We have also heard the learned counsel
appearing for the party respondent in both the writ appeals.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would argue that
the writ petitioner participated in the entrance examination for the
quota reserved for nurses by virtue of Ext.P2 prospectus. As per
Clause 5.2.10(i) of Ext.P2, one seat for the MBBS course was
reserved for nurses in regular service in the order of priority, that
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 9 2025:KER:60429
is, (a) Nursing Officer with B.Sc Nursing qualification, (b) Nursing
Officer with General Nursing and midwifery qualification, and (c)
Junior Public Health Nurse. The writ petitioner possesses the
qualification of General Nursing and Midwifery and whereas the
2nd respondent in W.A.No.1350 of 2025, who was placed in the 1 st
rank, has B.Sc Nursing qualification. According to the prospectus
condition, the 2nd respondent is placed above the rank of the writ
petitioner. It will not come under the mischief of a classification
within a class. The learned Senior Government Pleader further
argued that after participating in the examination based on Ext.P2
prospectus, the writ petitioner is estopped from contending
against the conditions in the prospectus. The classification was
made by the Government only to give service benefits to the
employees under the Government. The learned Senior
Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in
Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100] and
Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2017) 4 SCC 357] in support
of his arguments.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the writ
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 10 2025:KER:60429
petitioner argued that in the year 2023 also, the rank list was
prepared for the reserved seat for nurses, purely based on merit.
In the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Government
Pleader, the issue was the denial of a seat to the failed candidates.
Whereas in the case of the writ petitioner, he secured the highest
rank. Since nurses are a class, subsequent classification among
them is a violation of equality envisaged under the Constitution of
India. The learned counsel would further submit that since the
admission for the year 2024 was closed by 30.09.2024, the
learned Single Judge ought to have moulded the relief to give
admission to the writ petitioner in the year 2025. The learned
counsel relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Sudhir N.
v. State of Kerala [(2015) 6 SCC 685], Krishna Sradha S. v.
State of Andhra Pradesh [(2020) 17 SCC 465] and that of
this Court in Saurabh Jain (Dr.) v. State of Kerala [2011 (1)
KHC 680] in support of his arguments.
7. The writ petitioner is admittedly having the
qualification of General Nursing and Midwifery, and the 2 nd
respondent in W.A. No.1350 of 2025 is having B.Sc nursing
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 11 2025:KER:60429
qualification. Both of them participated in the NEET Examination,
2024, for one seat reserved for nurses under the Government of
Kerala. Clause 5.2.10(i) of Ext.P2 prospectus regarding the
reservation of one seat to Nurse-Allopathy for the MBBS course
is extracted hereunder:
“5.2.10(i) Nurse-Allopathy (NQ): One seat under this quota for
MBBS course is reserved for Nurses (Allopathy) in regular
service under Government of Kerala in the order of priority, a)
Nursing Officer with B.Sc Nursing qualification, b) Nursing
Officer with General Nursing and Midwifery qualification, c)
Junior Public Health Nurse (JPHN). Candidates should upload
a Service Certificate in Annexure XIV (a) from the Head of
Office, stating that the candidate is a Regular Employee in the
State Government Service and a registration certificate issued
by the Kerala Nurses & Midwives Council to the online
application. Admission will be given on the basis of the Kerala
State Rank List of NEET-UG 2024 prepared by the CEE and
subject to the eligibility conditions in Clause 6. The candidates
who have undergone Nursing Course outside the State should
obtain the Registration Certificate issued by the Nursing
Council of respective States and upload to the online
application (Refer Annexure III (2).”
8. In S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100] and
Ashok Kumar [(2017) 4 SCC 357], the Apex Court, by referring
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 12 2025:KER:60429
to its various previous judgments, including Chandra Prakash
Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [2002 (6) SCC 127], laid down
the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination
without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful,
a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of
entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise
where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she
cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process
was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the
result is not palatable.
9. In Sudhir N. [(2015) 6 SCC 685], the issue before
the Apex Court was the constitutional validity of Section 5(4) of
the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under
Service Quota Act, 2008 which prescribes admission to
postgraduate courses solely on the basis of inter se seniority of
the candidates who have taken the common entrance test for
postgraduate medical education and have obtained the minimum
eligibility bench mark in that test in terms of the regulations
framed by the Medical Council of India. By the judgment and order
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 13 2025:KER:60429
dated 30.03.2011 passed by this Court in W.P.(C)Nos.1014 of
2009 and 2610 of 2010, it was held that the selection of in-service
Medical Officers for postgraduate medical education shall be
strictly on the basis of inter se seniority of the candidates who
have taken the common entrance test. The said judgment and
order were challenged on the ground that the State Legislature
could not enact a law that would make selection for admission to
the postgraduate courses dependent solely on the seniority of the
in-service candidates without prescribing the minimum conditions
of eligibility for the candidates concerned. The competence of the
state legislature to enact Section 5(4) of the impugned legislation
was also called in question on the ground that the said piece of
legislation violated the regulations framed by the Medical Council
of India, the authority competent to do so under the Medical
Council of India Act, 1956. It was in that backdrop that the Apex
Court held that this Court was right in holding that in as much as
the provisions of Section 5(4) of the impugned enactment provide
a basis for selection of candidates different from the one stipulated
by the MCI Regulations, it was beyond the legislative competence
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 14 2025:KER:60429
of the State Legislature. However, this Court erred in holding that
seniority of the in-service candidate will continue to play a role,
provided the candidate concerned has appeared in the common
entrance test and secured the minimum percentage of the marks
stipulated by the regulations. The Apex Court further held that a
meritorious in-service candidate cannot be denied admission only
because he has an eligible senior above him, though lower in
merit. Merit alone can be the basis of admission among candidates
belonging to any given category. In-service candidates belong to
one category. Their inter-se merit cannot be overlooked, only to
promote seniority, which has no place in the scheme of MCI
Regulations. The Apex Court further held that this does not mean
that merit-based admissions to in-service candidates cannot take
into account the service rendered by such candidates in rural
areas. Weightage for such service is permissible while determining
the merit of the candidates in terms of the third proviso to
Regulation 9. After analysing the rival contentions, the Apex Court
held that admissions can and ought to be made only on the basis
of inter se merit of the candidates determined in terms of the said
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 15 2025:KER:60429
principle, which gives no weightage to seniority simpliciter.
10. In Sudhir N. [(2015) 6 SCC 685], the issue was
pertaining to selection to the postgraduate courses given to the
in-service candidates, solely based on seniority, neglecting the
merit of the candidates who appeared for the same common
entrance test. However, in the case at hand, it is not the
seniority, but the educational qualification of the in-service
candidates that was taken into account while preparing the rank
list on the basis of the prospectus issued by the department. In
such circumstances, the dictum in Sudhir N. [(2015) 6 SCC
685] is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand.
11. In Krishna Sradha [(2020) 17 SCC 465] the
question that has been referred to the larger Bench of the Apex
Court is where a student, a meritorious candidate, for no fault of
his/her is denied admission illegally and arbitrarily and who has
pursued her legal right expeditiously without delay, can be denied
admission because of the cut off date is over and in such a
situation the relief which can be given by the Court is to grant
appropriate compensation only or what relief can be granted by
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 16 2025:KER:60429
the Court in such a situation. By answering the reference, the Apex
Court held that to do complete justice, the Court, under
exceptional circumstances, and in rarest of rare cases direct the
admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats;
however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such
admission can be ordered within a reasonable time.
12. In Krishna Sradha [(2020) 17 SCC 465], the Apex
Court further held that if the Court deems fit and proper, after
giving an opportunity of hearing, cancel the admission given to
the candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list, if the
admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate
who has been denied admission illegally. It is also held by the
Apex Court that in case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of
admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic
year and wherever it is found that the action of the authorities has
been arbitrary and in breach of the rules or regulations or the
prospectus affecting right of the students and that a candidate is
found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has
approached the Court at the earliest and without any delay, the
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 17 2025:KER:60429
Court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted
to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing
appropriate directions by directing to increase the number of seats
as may be considered in appropriate in the case.
13. But as found in the instant case, since the writ
petitioner did not prove that the preparation of the rank list based
on the qualification prescribed in the prospectus issued by the 3 rd
appellant was arbitrary or violation of any of the statutory
provisions, such moulding of relief as claimed in W.A. No.1365 of
2025 is not warranted. Therefore, the facts of the judgment in
Krishna Sradha [(2020) 17 SCC 465] is not applicable to the
case in our hand.
14. In Saurabh Jain (Dr.) [ 2011 (1) KHC 680] a Full
Bench of this Court while overruling the judgment of the Division
Bench of this Court held that candidates participating in the
selection process either for employment or for an educational
opportunity are not estopped from challenging the legality of the
process, on the ground that they participated in the selection
process before raising the challenge to the selection process. But
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 18 2025:KER:60429
as noted above, in the instant case, there is no violation of
principles of equality or, in other words, the classification made by
the Government to give preference to the in-service candidates
holding higher educational qualifications cannot be said to violate
any of the statutory obligations. Therefore, the judgment in
Saurabh Jain (Dr.) [2011 (1) KHC 680] has also no
application to the facts of the instant case.
15 . The writ petitioner participated in the examination after
fully understanding clause 5.2.10(i) of Ext.P2. It is based on the
said clause in the prospectus, the 2nd respondent in W.A. No. 1350
of 2025 was placed above the writ petitioner, though the writ
petitioner secured more marks in the NEET Examination.
According to the appellants in W.A. No.1350 of 2025, such a
classification was given in Ext.P2 to give service benefits to the
employees under the Government. Such a fixation of priority,
based on the qualification, cannot be considered as a classification
within a class as contended by the writ petitioner. The learned
Single Judge failed to properly appreciate this aspect while
allowing the writ petition.
W.A. Nos.1350 and 1365 of 2025 19 2025:KER:60429
In the result, W.A. No. 1365 of 2025 stands dismissed.
W.A. No.1350 of 2025 is allowed by setting aside the impugned
judgment dated 20.05.2025 in W.P(C) No.29792 of 2024, and the
writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE