Dr. Thasneem Taj E. and Dr. Praseeda B.K. v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 25957 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**DR. THASNEEM TAJ E.**| |---|---| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**W/O SAJEEB K.P, KAKKOOTH PARAKKAL HOUSE,**| ||**MANNARAMALA P O, PATTIKKAD VIA,**| ||**MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679325.**| |**2**|**DR. PRASEEDA B.K.,**| ||**AGED 30 YEARS**| ||**GOURISHANKARAM HOUSE,**| ||**NEAR GOVT. AYURVEDA COLLEGE,**| ||**VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686141.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)**| ||**SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN**| ||**SRI.S.SUJIN**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,**| ||**HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,**| ||**GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**2**|**COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION,**| ||**HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SHANTHI NAGAR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| |**3**|**DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,**| ||**DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES,**| ||**GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.**| WP(C) No.25957/2018 2 **4 DIRECTOR, MES MEDICAL COLLEGE, MALAPPARAMBU, PALACHODE P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679338.** - **5 DIRECTOR, DR. SOMERWELL MEMORIAL CSI MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAKKONAM P O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695504.** **6 ADDL. R6. JUSTICE JAMES COMMISSION, OFFICE OF THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE AND FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE DPI, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** **(ADDITIONAL R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/12/2018 IN IA 3/2018 IN WPC 25957/2018.** **BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROF. COLLEGES SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH,SC,COCHIN CORPORA SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATHSCCOCHIN CORPORA** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.), SRI.S.SUJIN, SRI M.A ASIF SPECIAL GP, SMT M.A VAHEEDA, SMT MARY BENJAMIN, SRI R.T PRADEEP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) No.25957/2018 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.Vinod Chandran, J** **Two Doctors who successfully completed their Post Graduate Course after being admitted in two Self Financing Colleges in the Government Quota, as per the seat sharing agreement entered into with the Government, has approached this Court seeking release of their certificates entrusted with the College at the time of admission as also for issuance of course completion certificates. In the course of the pendency of the writ petition, by interim order dated 12.02.2019, the students were directed to be handed over the certificates which were entrusted to the College at the time of admission. The same has been done. The learned Counsel appearing for the management submits that the interim order is subject to the result of the writ petition and hence the mere compliance of the interim order cannot result in the rights of the management being frustrated.** **2. On facts, we have to notice that the 1[st] petitioner was admitted to the 4[th] respondent College for PG Course-MD in General Medicine and the 2[nd] petitioner to** WP(C) No.25957/2018 4 **the 5[th] respondent College for the course-MD in Community Medicine. Both completed the course successfully and immediately thereafter obtained employment under the State through the Public Service Commission. They joined the State service and hence failed to respect their obligation insofar as bonded service for one year with the institution. The Self-Financing Colleges assert their right to withhold the certificates entrusted to them at the time of admission. In the context of refusal to comply with such bonded service; they assert their right to release the certificates only if such bond is discharged or liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- is paid.** **3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sugunapalan appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Vaheeda and Sri.R.T.Pradeep, learned Counsel appearing respectively for the 4[th ] and 5[th] respondents and Smt. Mary Benjamin, Standing Counsel appearing for the 6[th] respondent.** **4. Sri. Sugunapalan took us through Ext.P1 prospectus issued for admission to Medical Post Graduate Degree/Diploma courses, 2015. The prospectus itself speak of 50% allotment to Self Financing Colleges, which** WP(C) No.25957/2018 5 **allotment has been facilitated by Ext.P5 notification issued by the Government with respect to the 4[th] respondent College and Ext.P6 notification with respect to the 5[th] respondent College. It is pointed out that neither of the notifications provide for withholding of the certificates; either those entrusted at the time of admission or those enabled on completion of the course. Insistence of the college is said to be on the basis of Ext.R4(b) bond which was obtained from the student at the time of admission in the College. It is pointed out that the Colleges had incorporated an additional condition for withholding of certificates, which they were not enabled by the specific terms of the agreement based on which the allotment was made by the Government to 50% seats. It is also pointed out that Ext.P24 which was issued by the Admission Supervisory Committee (for short "ASC") had specifically withheld the condition of liquidated damages as available in Ext.P5; which provision for liquidated damages is totally absent in Ext.P6. It is contended that there could be no withholding of the certificates entrusted at the time of admission nor the certificates facilitated on completion of course. Reliance is placed on an unreported judgment of this Court in W.A No.** WP(C) No.25957/2018 6 **493/2017 (The Principal, MES Medical College,** **Perinthalmanna v. Shireen M T) dated 22.03.2017.** **5. Smt.Vaheeda and Sri. Pradeep, learned Counsel appearing for the party respondents-colleges, would take us through Ext.P1 to assert that the provisions in Clause** **13 would equally apply to the admissions made to Self Financing Colleges, especially since, the seat sharing agreement is entered into after the prospectus is published. As to the withholding of condition of liquidated damages by the ASC it is argued that the college has specifically moved the Committee for modifying the order. Even otherwise Section 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 comes to the rescue of the College, since the specific terms of the bond executed by the student enables the college to withhold the documents if the bonded service is not complied with or otherwise demand Rs.10,00,000/- as liquidated damages. Reliance is placed on yet another decision of the Division Bench reported in** _**ILR (2018(2) Kerala 603) Dr.Ayisha Beegam and others v. State of Kerala and others.**_ **The Division Bench had categorically found that the provision for withholding of certificates does not at all run counter to public policy. It is further argued to be a measure** WP(C) No.25957/2018 7 **devised to obtain services of qualified hands as Senior Residents so as to comply with the conditions for continued recognition as provided for under Ext.R4(c) to R4(e). The provision for bonded service with the institution, is contended to be a direct consequence of the obligation to comply with the terms in Ext.R4(c) to (e); which** _**inter alia**_ **speaks of a required amount of Senior Residents to be mandatorily employed in the College for continued recognition of the Course conducted thereat. Alternately it is argued that the Senior Residency as stipulated in the prospectus and the agreement is a part of the PG Course which the petitioners had taken.** **6. Sri Sugunapalan however, produces before us across the Bar, the Medical Council of India, Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, Guidelines for Competency Based Post Graduate Training Programme for MD in General Medicine and the Regulations of the Kerala University of Health Sciences to contend that Junior Residency alone is an essential part of the Course; which has to be completed within the course period itself, i.e, within three years. Senior Residency is an employment which is stipulated after the Post Graduate course** WP(C) No.25957/2018 8 **completion and obtaining such qualification.** **7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the** **ASC Smt.Mary Benjamin points out that the specific clause for liquidated damages was withheld by the ASC and hence it was incompetent for the College to have incorporated the said condition in the bond got executed from one of the petitioners. It was also incumbent on the College to have brought out a prospectus excluding such a condition. The attempt to modify the order of the ASC was also made after the petitioners approached this Court with the writ petition.** **8. We will first look at the decisions placed before us.** _**Shireen.M.T**_ **(supra) was an appeal filed by a Self Financing College. The finding of the learned Single Judge was that the terms of a bond, permitting withholding of certificates, for failure to comply with a compulsory condition of service would go against public policy. The Division Bench however, did not deal with the specific question of whether the condition for withholding of certificates would run contrary to public policy. Therein; on facts it was noticed that, withholding was of the MBBS certificate, which course was completed by the student in the Self Financing College. Looking at the** WP(C) No.25957/2018 9 **specific terms of the prospectus it was found that withholding if at all, was contemplated only of certificates entrusted to the college at the time of admission. MBBS certificate is not a certificate deposited at the time of admission and is one enabled to the student after successful completion of the course. It was hence held that the college could not have withheld the MBBS certificate.** **9. Going further, the subsidiary question as to withholding of other certificates entrusted at the time of admission was also considered. It was specifically found that there was a clause providing withholding of certificates; in the contingency of non-performance of one-year compulsory service. The Division Bench however, read the entire clauses to hold that there was an option built-in which provided release of bond of compulsory employment on payment of liquidated damages. It was hence held that there was no absolute right conferred on the Manager to withhold all the certificates, till the completion of one year compulsory service and what is contemplated is only a payment of liquidated damages.** **10. Herein also, we notice that what has been withheld by the College are not the certificates** WP(C) No.25957/2018 10 **entrusted with them at the time of admission; but the course completed certificates, for which obviously there is no enabling provision in the Notifications at Exts.P5 & P6 or the bond executed by the student. The certificates entrusted at the time of admission have already been released by the colleges. We cannot countenance the submission of the learned Counsel that the interim order passed would be subject to the result of the writ petition and hence the handing over of documents would not adversely affect the rights of the respondent colleges. Having read the interim order, we find that the handing over of the documents is a** _**fait accompli**_ **and there cannot be a reversal of the same, even if the writ petition is rejected; since we do not find the consequences of the order to be specifically recorded as subject to the result of the writ petition. There was also no such request made before Court and the Colleges had willingly conceded to the interim order. The Colleges cannot now turn around and contend that despite that; the clause of withholding has to be enforced to realise the liquidated damages.** **11. Be that as it may; we look at** _**Dr.Ayisha Beegam**_ **(supra) and the bond arising for consideration** WP(C) No.25957/2018 11 **there, which was specifically with respect to the compulsory employment with the Government. This is the stipulation in Clause 13 of Ext. P1 prospectus issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination, which is not applicable to self-financing institutions.** _**Dr.Ayisha Beegam**_ **(supra) only dealt with the aspect of public policy; as was found against by the learned Single Judge in Shireen's case.** _**Dr.Ayisha Beegam**_ **(supra) found the specific terms of withholding of certificates, to be valid and proper and not running contrary to public policy. It was held that the bond executed enabled the colleges to withhold the certificates.** **12. At the outset we have to notice with emphasis that in the present case, there is absolutely no such provision either in the Prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination or the college, nor in the Notification issued with respect to the two colleges, enabling such withholding of certificates. In** _**Shireen**_ **(supra) Clause 8 available therein was extracted, which is as below:** **“8. The certificates submitted by the candidate at the time of admission will be released to the candidate only after the** WP(C) No.25957/2018 12 **successful completion of one-year compulsory employment or on payment of the compensation as prescribed below”** **In** _**Dr.Ayisha Beegam**_ **(supra) also the General Terms of the Prospectus of Admission for Medical Post Graduate Degree Courses, 2013 contained a provision for withholding of certificates which we extract hereunder:** **“(g) The certificates which are to be submitted in the college at the time of admission will be released only after the completion of the compulsory bonded service or, in the case of bond violation, the liquidated damages are paid.”** **13. In the present case, as we noticed, Ext.P1 is the Prospectus issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination, which under the General Terms speaks only of General Merit candidates including All India Quota candidates admitted to Medical Post Graduate Courses being obliged to serve the Government of Kerala in Medical Education Services as Senior Resident for a period not less than one year; as per clause 13-1.(c).** WP(C) No.25957/2018 13 **Clause 13-2.7 also enables withholding of certificates entrusted at the time of admission if the compulsory bonded service is not discharged ie: if the Government calls for it. Clause 13-2.8 also provides for absolving such candidates from compulsory service if the Government is not able to provide such employment as Senior Resident. Clause 13.2.4(ii) provides liquidated damages of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only), in case of the compulsory bonded serviced being not discharged. We have to notice that this does not take in the terms of compulsory service with a Self-Financing College. Admittedly, the Government has not called upon the petitioners herein to discharge their compulsory bonded service as stipulated in Ext.P1 Prospectus and there can be no reliance placed by the Self-Financing Colleges on the stipulations in the Prospectus of the CEE applicable to Government Service alone.** **14. The seat sharing agreement with the Self Financing Colleges; separately with the 4[th] respondent and the 5[th] respondent are respectively in terms of Ext.P5 and P6 Notifications. Ext.R4(a) is the agreement entered into between the 4[th] respondent college and the State, in terms of which Ext.P5 was issued. Though the** WP(C) No.25957/2018 14 **agreement with the 5[th] respondent is not produced, we presume that it is in pursuance of such an agreement that Ext.P6 was issued. Exts.P5 and P6 both stipulates that the Management concerned shall accept and admit the students accordingly, following the above procedure but in any case not later than 5.00 p.m on 6.6.2015.The specific stipulation in the Government Order would persuade us to find that there could not have been any terms insisted upon by the college, at least with respect to students allotted on merit in the Government Quota, beyond what is provided in the agreements entered into by the Self Financing Colleges and the Government notifications brought out.** **15. Ext.P5 has the following clause with respect to the compulsory bonded services.** **"8. All the students admitted in the Self Financing College will execute a bond to the effect that they will serve the Institution for a period of One year as Senior Resident/Tutor/Demonstrator at the rate fixed by the Government on Government Medical Colleges after successful completion of Post** WP(C) No.25957/2018 15 **Graduation course. Any student, who fail to** **serve the Institution as mentioned above, shall pay an amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs as liquidated damages to the College."** **Ext.P6 also has clause 8 which is as below:** **"8. All the students admitted in the SelfFinancing College will execute a bond to the effect that they will serve the Institution for** **a period of One year as Senior Resident/Tutor/Demonstrator at the rate fixed by the Government in Government Medical Colleges after successful completion of Post Graduation course"** **16. In the case of the 5[th] respondent college** **there was no provision for liquidated damages. In the case of the 4[th] respondent college though there is a provision for liquidated damages, the same has been withheld by the ASC as per Ext.P24. Ext.P24 is dated 19.05.2015. Ext.R4(b), a bond executed by the first petitioner, is later to that, on 05.06.2015. Hence when the ASC had specifically withheld the provision for liquidated damages, there could not have been a provision incorporated in the agreement got executed by the** WP(C) No.25957/2018 16 **student, providing for liquidated damages. This is especially so since the admissions are carried out strictly before the cut-off dates stipulated and often a student would not have the time to challenge a condition in the bond; since if she attempts that she may very well loose the allotment. There is an element of unequal bargaining and it has to be held that the Self-Financing Institutions admitting students on merit in the Government Quota can provide for conditions, only as permitted by the Government and enabled as per the terms of the agreement of seat-sharing and the notifications brought out. Any condition adverse and detrimental to the interest of the student and not specifically permitted by the Government; would be unenforceable considering the nature of the relationship between the institution and the student; where the latter is subservient.** **17. More important, in resistance of the assertion of the colleges; we notice that clause (8), both in Exts.P5 and P6 does not speak of withholding of certificates, not even those entrusted to the college at the time of admission as was available in** _**Shireen**_ **and** _**Dr.Aisha Beegam**_ **(both supra). It is also pertinent that the Prospectus of the college as seen from Ext.P7** WP(C) No.25957/2018 17 **applicable for selection and admission to the Post Graduate Medical, MD/MS/Diploma Course under Management Quota, though provides for a service bond as per clause (IX), it does not speak of any withholding of the certificates either entrusted to the college at the time of admission or those issued on completion of the course.** **18. We also have to deal with the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent colleges that the provision for bonded service is a direct consequence of requirement as prescribed by the Medical Council of India (for short “MCI”). Prescription of MCI as has been pointed out by the respondent College from Ext.R4(c) to (e) are obligations of the college and it cannot be related to the compulsory bond stipulated in the Prospectus or the seat-sharing agreement. We take note of the submission made by the learned Counsel that there is a dearth of Senior Residents but however, that alone would not enable the Self Financing College, by itself to make a provision, which is not available in the agreement with the State or notification issued by the Government.** **19. The mandatory requirement of having a** **minimum number of qualified professionals in the Medical** WP(C) No.25957/2018 18 **Colleges, is an obligation of the College. It is independent of the compulsory service clause as available in the prospectus and the agreements between the Government and the College.** **20. We also notice that the Regulations of 2000 brought out by the Medical Council of India regarding Post Graduate Medical Education. The period of training in clause 10 is as below:** **10. Period of Training: The period of training for the award of various postgraduate degrees or diplomas shall be as follows:** **(1)Doctor of Medicine(M.D)/Master of Surgery(MS)** **The period of training for obtaining these degrees shall be three completed years including the period of examination.** **Clause 13.2 is also extracted herein below:** **"All candidates joining the Post Graduate training programme shall work as full time residents during the period of training, attending not less than 80%(Eighty Percent) of the training during each calendar year, and given full time responsibility, assignments and participation in all facets of the educational process."** WP(C) No.25957/2018 19 **21. We also see from the** _**"Guidelines for**_ _**Competency Based Post Graduate Training Programme for MD in General Medicine"**_ **that the structured training is for three years and not beyond that. The "** _**Kerala University of Health Science Regulations for Post Graduate Medical Courses"**_ **also provides for duration of courses and Training programmes as below:** **"3.4: Duration of Course: Every candidate seeking admission to the training programme to qualify for the Degree of MD/MS in the subjects conducted under the University shall pursue a regular course of study, in the concerned Department under the guidance of a recognized Post Graduate teacher for a period of three years and for Diploma, shall be two y ears. The duration of course of Diploma holders pursuing MD/MS in the same specifically shall be two years."** **"3.10.2: All candidates joining the Post Graduate training programme shall work as full time residents during the period of training, attending not less than 80 percent of the training, and given full time responsibility,** WP(C) No.25957/2018 20 **assignments and participation in all facets of** **the educational process."** **Hence it cannot be said that Senior Residency is a part of the course and the compulsory service stipulated in the terms of the agreement would be a part of the PG course to which the petitioners have been admitted.** **22. We notice from Ext.R4(b), executed by the first petitioner that the consequence for failure to discharge bonded service is as follows:** **"I hereby solemnly undertake that I shall pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) as liquidated damages to the MES Medical College. I also state that in case I fail to pay the said liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) to the MES Medical College, the MES Medical College shall have all the rights to recover the said amount from me. I also agree to the condition that my original certificates submitted at the time of admission to the course will be returned only after the successful completion of one year service in MES Medical College/MES Medical College Hospital/Other Health** WP(C) No.25957/2018 21 **Institution attached to MES Management.”** **23. As we already found the provision for liquidated damages has been withheld by the ASC. There is also no enabling provision in the notification or the agreements executed with the State, permitting the withholding of certificates submitted at the time of admission to the course. There is also no reservation made with respect to the issuance of certificates on successful completion of course; making it contingent to discharging the compulsory service, even in the bond executed by the 1[st] petitioner. In such circumstances, the consequence flowing from Ext.R4(b) as to liquidated damages as also withholding of certificates cannot be insisted by the Self Financing College as against the student admitted in the Government merit quota which is regulated by the specific terms of agreement for seat sharing and notification issued in pursuance of such agreement. The college cannot on the failure to satisfy the bond refuse issuance of certificates on successful completion of course; which is not even a term agreed to by the student in the bond executed. The 2[nd] petitioner has not executed a bond and in her case too, there cannot be any withholding.** WP(C) No.25957/2018 22 **22. However, we notice that there is a clause for compulsory bonded service which the Self-Financing Colleges would have to enforce by resorting to appropriate measures. It may not be proper for us to decide the issue under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the respondent colleges based on Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act is left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum. We may not be mistaken as having found a valid claim on the respondent colleges especially since we have left it to be considered by the authority or Court before whom the respondent-colleges may choose to raise it. But the claim for liquidated damages as incorporated in the bond executed by the 1[st] respondent, we have already found to be unenforceable. The adjudication would be proceeded with, if at all initiated as in any tortious liability. In such circumstances, we allow the writ petition directing the colleges to issue course certificate, completion certificate, Transfer Certificate, Conduct Certificate and Attempt Certificate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.** **The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent** WP(C) No.25957/2018 23 **colleges seek leave to file appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Considering the legal implications of the issue considered by us we are of the opinion that leave can be granted to the respondent colleges to file appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We hence grant leave to appeal.** **Sd/K.Vinod Chandran, Judge** **jma** **Sd/V.G Arun, Judge** WP(C) No.25957/2018 24 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR PG MEDICAL ENTRANCE EXAMINATION DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER APPROVING THE PROSPECTUS DATED 15.12.2014. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SELECTION MEMO ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02.06.2015. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT MEMO ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER DATED 02.06.2015. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 08.05.2015 WITH RESPECT TO 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 18.04.2015 ISSUED WITH RESPECT TO 5TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 20.02.2018. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 28.11.2017. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BOND EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER DATED 08.12.2017. EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 06.02.2017. EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 02.06.2018. EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2018. EXHIBIT P14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF CHARGE DATED 05.06.2018. EXHIBIT P15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2018. EXHIBIT P16 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT INSISTING THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 12.06.2018.** WP(C) No.25957/2018 25 **EXHIBIT P17 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 25.04.2015. EXHIBIT P18 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT VIA EMAIL BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2018. EXHIBIT P19 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2018. EXHIBIT P2O THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TRANSFER OF CHARGE DATED 30.05.2015 FOR THE PURPOSE OF LWA. EXHIBIT P21 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20.12.2014. EXHIBIT P22 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES ALLOTTED TO 4TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES ALLOTED TO 5TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE DATED NIL. EXHIBIT P24 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE DATED 19/05/2015.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R4 A A TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENSUAL AGREEMENT DATED 06/05/2015 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBIT R4 B A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE BOND DATED 04/06/2005 EXECUTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER WITH THE DEAN OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE. EXHIBIT R4 C A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MINIMUM STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MEDICAL COLLEGE FOR 100 ADMISSIONS ANNUALLY REGULATIONS, 1999. EXHIBIT R4 D A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS, 2000. EXHIBIT R4 E A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS FOR TEACHERS IN MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS REGULATIONS, 1998.** WP(C) No.25957/2018 |||26| |---|---|---| |**EXHIBIT R5**|**A**|**TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT)NO.1205/2015/H&FWD**| |||**DATED 18/04/2015.**| |**EXHIBIT R5**|**B**|**TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.30/2018 DATED**| |||**20/02/2018.**| |**EXHIBIT R5**|**C**|**TRUE COPY OF CLASSIFICATORY ORDER DATED**| |||**12/04/2018 BY GOVERNMENT.**| |**EXHIBIT R5**|**D**|**TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT LETTER VIDE HEALTH-**| |||**S2/141/2018 DATED 04/08/2018.**| |**EXHIBIT R5**|**E**|**TRUE COPY OF GO(MS)NO.100/2015/H&FWD DATED**| |||**12/05/2015.**| |**EXHIBIT R5**|**F**|**TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED**| |||**29/08/2018 BY DR. SOMERWELL MEMORIAL CSI**| |||**MEDICAL COLLEGE, KARAKKONAM TO GOVERNMENT.**|