W.P.(C) Nos.9228, 12949 & 11091 of 2018

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2018 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 9228 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER(S)** - **1 DR. AKHIL YADAV B., S/O. N. BABU, THEKKEATTATHU VEEDU, POOVATHOOR,** - **POREDOM(P.O.), KOLLAM-691 534.** - **2 DR. AKSHAY SUJITH,** - **S/O. K. SUJITH, VARADAKSHINA, PANCHAMI LANE,** - **KODUNGANOOR P.O., VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013.** **BY ADVS.SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ** **KUM.A.ARUNA** **KUM.THULASI K. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &** **FAMILY WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, FIFTH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3. DIRECTOR MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 011.** **4. JOINT DIRECTOR MEDICAL EDUCATION (G), DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 011.** **5. DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA, AIWAN-E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD, TEMPLE LANE, OPP. MATA SUNDARI COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, NEW DELHI-110 002.** **..2/-** **..2..** ## **WP(C).No. 9228 of 2018** ## *** ADDITIONAL R6 IMPLEADED** **6. ISHARA ISMAIL.P., D/O.MOHAMED ISMAIL, AGED 32 YEARS, 'GHAZAL', GYM ROAD, PONNAI P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 577.** *** ADDITIONAL R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 10.04.2018 IN I.A.NO. 6720 OF 2018.** **R1 TO R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.PRAKASH** **ADDL.R6 BY ADVS. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.S.PRASANTH SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT. HARITHA V.A SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV SRI.R.NANDAGOPAL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-05-2018, ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO. 11091 OF 2018 AND W.P.(C)NO. 12949 OF 2018, THE COURT ON 29-05-2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Msd.** **29.05.2018** **WP(C).No. 9228 of 2018 (C)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 RESULT OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 RESULT OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO. 39/2018/H&FWD DATED 03.03.2018 TOGETHER WITH THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO THE MASTER OF DENTAL SURGERY COURSES (MDS) IN GOVERNMENT DENTAL COLLEGES FOR THE YEAR 2018-2019.** **EXHIBIT P4 RELEVANT PAGES OF REVISED DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA REGULATIONS 2007.** **EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.08.2016 IN C.A. NO.8047/2016.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :** **EXHIBIT R6(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE-QUOTA LIST-PROVISIONAL DATED 21.03.2018 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY//** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Msd.** **29.05.2018** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J.** -------------------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(C) Nos.9228, 12949 & 11091 of 2018 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29[th] day of May, 2018** ## **JUDGMENT** The aforesaid writ petitions are substantially connected in respect of Master of Dental Surgery (MDS) admission for the year 2018-2019 _vis-a-vis_ service quota. Therefore, I heard them together, and dispose of the same by this common judgment. 2. W.P.(C) No.9228 of 2018 is filed by candidates who applied for the course for the year 2018-19 and appeared for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2018-19. Petitioners in the said writ petition have passed the NEET examination. The rank and the Quota category rank of the 1[st] petitioner is 306 and 105 respectively in the All India 50% Quota earmarked in the NEET Examination. Likewise, the Quota rank and category rank of the 2[nd] petitioner is 267 and 92 respectively. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are qualified to be admitted to the course of MDS in the State Quota seats within the Kerala State. The rank list is yet to be published by the 1[st] respondent. Petitioners have produced **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 2 Exts.P1 and P2 NEET results, 2018. 3. While so, the 1[st] respondent, as per Ext.P3 Government Order dated 03.03.2018, has published the Prospectus for admission to the Master of Dental Surgery Courses (MDS) in Government Dental Colleges. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P3, the 1[st] respondent has provided service quota for MDS courses, which are Post Graduate Degree Courses, as per Clause 3.5, which read thus: _“Service candidates are also required to remit all the required fees. Fee remitted by Service Quota candidates will not be refunded/reimbursed under any circumstances.”_ Clause 4(C)(i) of the Prospectus stipulates that there is no upper age limit for General Quota candidates. Clause 4(C)(ii) deals with the age limit for the Service Quota candidates, which read thus: _“For Service Quota candidates, other than from Medical Education Services Quota (MESQ), whose retirement age is 60 years, the upper age limit will be 50 years for Post Graduate Degree Courses as on 01.01.2018. But for those candidates in the service of DHS, who submit a bond (Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper) at the time of admission, that they shall serve the Government of Kerala in any capacity which the Government deems fit after their retirement, up to the age of 60 years (the retirement age in MES and IMS), as per the terms and conditions prescribed by the Government and that they will not take up employment elsewhere during this period if the Government has requisitioned their services, the upper age limit of such_ **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 3 _service candidates drawn from DHS will be 52 years for PG Degree course._ _(iii) For MESQ and IMSQ candidates, upper age limit will be 52 years as on 01.01.2018.”_ ## 4. Clause 6.1.6 deals with Reservation for Government Service candidates, which read thus: _“Reservation not exceeding of the available seats will be reserved for Dental Surgeons in Kerala Government Service under the DME, Health Services & ISM. This is variable from year to year and whether such a reservation in respect of any category is essential, will be decided by the Prospectus Committee of Government.”_ ## 5. Clause 7.4 of the Prospectus deals with Claim for reservation under Service Quota, which read thus: _“_ _**7.4.1** : Maximum 31% of State Quota seats are earmarked for Government Service quota candidates. Seats as shown in Annexure-I are set apart for Service Quota candidates sponsored by each Department under the following three categories._ _a) Medical Education Service Quota (MESQ) b) Health Service Quota (HSQ)_ _c) Insurance Medical Service Quota (IMSQ) The eligibility criteria laid down in clause 4 A, B,_ _C & D are applicable for service candidates also._ _**7.4.2:** The applicants under Service Quota should be regular staff under Medical Education Department / Health Service Department & Insurance Medical Service and should have completed a minimum period of one year service in the concerned Department to become eligible to apply._ _**7.4.3:** The total service will be reckoned as on the date of notification issued by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, Kerala for admission to Post Graduate Dental Course-2018._ **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 4 _(_ _**Unauthorized absence or absence due to L.W.A (including leave on Medical ground) and the deputation periods of the candidates will not be counted for the purpose of calculating the minimum service** )._ _However, the period of deputation of Health Service Department candidates to autonomous institutions/projects/societies/other agencies under the administrative control of heath department will be counted as eligible service under Service Quota. The rank list prepared by CEE based on the NEET MDS2018 will be criteria of selection._ _**7.4.4:** The Controlling authorities concerned (Head of the Department concerned) have power to deny admission in respect of service candidates who are facing disciplinary action depending upon the gravity of the offence. However, this will be subject to review and approval of the Government._ _**7.4.5:** Lectures and Dental surgeons, who were selected for MDS Course in any speciality under Service Quota once, shall not be eligible for selection to another speciality under Service Quota a second time. The applicant shall upload a declaration to this effect as in_ _**Annexure-II** . Application devoid of such declaration will be rejected._ _**7.4.6:** It is mandatory for the Service Quota candidates to join the course to which they are selected and if they do not join the course or discontinue the course after joining, they will not be considered for selection to P.G. Course under service quota in future. Service candidates discontinuing the course for any reason shall be bound to pay to Government a sum equal to liquidated damages levied from merit students._ ## _**7.4.7(a): Medical Education Service Quota (MESQ)**_ _Lectures working in Government Dental/Medical colleges in the State are eligible to apply under lecture quota, and only in the speciality in which they are recruited through PSC and appointed, for the seats reserved for them as per Clause-5. They shall be_ **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 5 _regular lectures._ ## _**7.4.7(b): Health Service Quota (HSQ)**_ _Dental Surgeons working under the Health Service Department in Government Hospitals in the State are eligible to apply under Dental Surgeons Quota for reserved for them as per Clause-5. They shall be regular Dental Surgeons._ ## _**7.4.7(c): Insurance Medical Service Quota (IMSQ)**_ _Dental Surgeons working under Insurance Medical Service Department are eligible to apply under IMS Quota for reserved for them. The selected candidates shall submit a declaration to the effect that they will service Insurance Medical Service Department in the specialist post immediately on successfully completing the course and on posting orders against the posts given by Director of Insurance Medical Service._ ## _**7.4.8: Application & Selection under Service Quota:**_ _The Service candidates should also apply to the Commissioner of Entrance Examination. They should invariably forward through proper channel, a copy of the application printout along with the copies of all required documents duly attested by a competent Officer and service details such as date and number of KPSC advice, Certificate of Date of commencement of regular service from the appointing authority and service details from the Accountant General to the controlling officer concerned (DME/DHS.DIMS). Before forwarding to the CEE, the DME will place the same before the Post Graduate selection committee for scrutiny. The Commissioner for Entrance Examination will finalize the rank list based on merit of NEET-MDS2018. The P.G. Selection committee has power to deny admission in respect of the service candidates who are facing disciplinary action. Service candidates who are facing disciplinary action involving major penalty shall not be recommended by the HOD concerned. The declaration relating to this may also be attached along with the application. However, this will be subject to review and approval of the Government._ **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 6 _Service Quota for Degree courses can be claimed only once during the period of whole service in one department viz. MES/DHS/IMS.”_ 6. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is that, the above clauses are issued in violation of the Dental Council of India Revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007, and the relevant pages of the Regulations are produced by the petitioners as Ext.P4. Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid Regulations deals with reservation for Post Graduate Diploma Courses for Dental Officers in the Government service. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the reservation made under the Regulations is only in respect of Post Graduate Diploma Courses, and therefore, there can be no service quota for the Post Graduate Degree Courses. It is also submitted by the petitioners that, the said issue was considered by the apex court in ' _**State of U.P. & Ors. v. Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ' [(2016) 9 SCC 749] in respect of the Medical Council of India Regulations _vis-a-vis_ the Service Quota in Post Graduate Medical Courses, wherein, it is held that the said Regulations are in _para materia_ with relevant provisions of the Dental Council Regulations, 2007, and therefore, the ratio in the said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand, which **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 7 judgment is produced as Ext.P5. 7. It is the further case of the petitioners that, the proposition of law laid down in the said judgment would make it categoric and clear that there can be no quota fixed for service candidates for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree Courses. It was also held therein that, only marks can be given as incentive for the service rendered in remote/difficult areas. It is also the case of the petitioners that, in the State of Kerala, there are no medical officers working as Dental Surgeons in remote or difficult areas. 8. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12949 of 2018 are Dental Surgeons in Government Service, and they have passed NEET MDS-2018 with high score. According to the petitioners, as per the Government Order and the Prospectus issued by the Government of Kerala, six seats are set apart for in-service candidates who are in Health Service and Medical Education Service. Having regard to the high rank of the petitioners among the in-service candidates, Government issued provisional list of candidates selected for admission to MDS inservice quota including the petitioners. In the meantime, respondents 6 and 7 filed W.P.(C) No.9228 of 2018, **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 8 challenging the Prospectus dated 03.03.2018 to the extent, it provides quota for in-service candidates on the ground that the quota fixed is against the judgment rendered by the apex court in ' _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan'**_ ( _supra_ ). 8. It is the further case of the petitioners that, the said judgment is not in relation to MDS admission, and the judgment was rendered in a subject matter arising under the Medical Post Graduate Degree courses as per Medical Council of India Regulations. Since the Medical Council of India Regulations are not applicable to MDS courses, the proposition of law laid down in ' _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan'** (supra)_ , would not apply. It is further stated that, the apex court as well as this Court in a number of decisions have upheld the power of the State Government to provide quota for admission to Medical Post Graduate Degree courses strictly in accordance with the rank obtained in NEET. However, without taking into account the aforesaid aspects, 1[st] respondent in the guise of implementing the directions of this Court, amended and modified the Prospectus and shifted the in-service quota into general quota, and therefore, the modified Prospectus is illegal and arbitrary. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 9 ## following questions are raised by the petitioners: _“i) Is the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in relation to Admission to Medical PG courses based on regulations framed by MCI be a precedent in a case of where quota for in-service candidates is provided by the State in respect of MDS courses regulated by Regulations framed by Dental Council;_ _ii) Having regard to the legal position that the Supreme Court in_ _**Sudhir N v. State of Kerala (2015 (6) SCC 685** ) and other decisions has categorically held that quota for in-service candidates is a different channel of selection and is within the power of the State Government despite the legal position that MCI Regulation is a complete code and the Supreme Court having approved and relied on the said judgment in the decision reported in 2016 (9) SCC 749, can there be departure from the principle laid down in Sudhir's case in the matter of admission to MDS courses from inservice quota prescribed by the Government;_ _iii) Has the Government power to modify or alter the Prospectus for MDS admission 2018 in Government Dental Colleges after the selection procedure is over and provisional rank list has been published?”_ 9. So far as W.P.(C) No.11091 of 2018 is concerned, petitioners are Assistant Dental Surgeons working with the State Government, seeking to set aside Ext.P7 order issued by the State Government, to the extent it fixes the date of publication of notification by the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, as the relevant date for considering the total service of the in-service candidates in the concerned Department for admission to Post Graduate Dental Courses, 2018, and for other consequential reliefs. It is evident that the **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 10 fate of the said writ petition will depend on the outcome of the judgment in the other two writ petitions. 10. Having heard the rival submissions made across the Bar by the respective counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader, the question to be decided is whether any departure from the proposition of law laid down in ' _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan'**_ (supra) is required. While the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.9228 of 2018 is of the definite opinion that the principles of law laid down in ' _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan'**_ ( _supra_ ) apply, and therefore, no service quota can be fixed for Post Graduate Dental courses, petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12949 of 2018 rely upon the judgment of the apex court in ' _**Sudhir N. and others v. State of Kerala and Others**_ ' [(2015) 6 SCC 685], ' _**State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Others**_ ' [(2003) 7 SCC 83], ' _**Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others**_ ' [(2016) 7 SCC 353] and ' _**Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v. State of M.P**_ .' [(1999) 7 SCC 120], to canvass the proposition that, what is prohibited is reservation for the inservice candidates and not quota fixed by the State **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 11 Government under the State Regulations for admission of the in-service candidates for Post Graduate courses. 11. In my considered opinion, the judgment in ' _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan'**_ ( _supra_ ) is rendered by the apex court, taking into account all the afore-quoted judgments, and it is held in paragraph 20 that, Regulation 9 of Medical Council of India Regulations is a self-contained Code regarding the procedure to be followed for admissions to medical courses. It was further held that, the State has no authority to enact any law much-less by executive instructions that may undermine the procedure for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses enunciated by the Central Legislation and Regulations framed thereunder, being a subject falling within the Entry 66 of List I to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. It was further held that, the procedure for selection of candidates for the Post Graduate Degree Courses is one such area on which the Central Legislation and Regulations must prevail. Thereafter, making an elaborate survey of Regulation 9 of Medical Council of India Regulations, it is held as follows in paragraph 23: **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 12 _“23. Thus understood, the Central Enactment and the Regulations framed thereunder do not provide for reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate “Degree” Courses. As there is no express provision prohibiting reservation to in-service candidates in respect of admission to Post Graduate “Degree” Courses, it was contended that providing for such reservation by the State Government is not impermissible in law. Further, there are precedents of this Court to suggest that such arrangement is permissible as a separate channel of admission for inservice candidates. This argument does not commend to us. In the first place, the decisions pressed into service have considered the provisions regarding admission process governed by the Regulations in force at the relevant time. The admission process in the present case is governed by the Regulations which have come into force from Academic Year 2013-14. This Regulation is a self-contained Code. There is nothing in this Regulation to even remotely indicate that a separate channel for admission to in-service candidates must be provided, at least in respect of Post Graduate “Degree” Courses. In contradistinction, however, 50% seats are earmarked for the Post Graduate “Diploma” Courses for in-service candidates, as is discernible from Clause (VII). If the Regulation intended a similar separate channel for in-service candidates even in respect of Post Graduate “Degree” Courses, that position would have been made clear in Regulation 9 itself. In absence thereof, it must be presumed that a separate channel for in-service candidates is not permissible for admission to Post Graduate “Degree” Courses. Thus, the State Government, in law, had no authority to issue a Government Order such as dated 28[th] February 2014, to provide to the contrary. Hence, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside the said Government Order being contrary to the mandate of Regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2000, as applicable from Academic Year 2013-14.”_ 12. While holding so, it was also held in paragraph 24 that: “it does not however, follow that giving weightage or **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 13 incentive marks to in-service candidates for Post Graduate “Degree” Courses entails in excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality”. On a perusal of Regulation 9 of Medical Council of India Regulations, it is evident that it recognizes the principle of giving weightage to in-service candidates while determining their merit, and in that sense, incentive marks given to in-service candidates is in recognition of their service reckoned in remote and difficult areas of the State, which marks are to be added to the marks obtained by them in the NEET. It is also held therein that, it is a legitimate and rational basis to encourage the Medical Graduates/Doctors to offer their services and expertise in remote or difficult areas of the State for some time. Paragraph 32 of the judgment in _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ (supra) is also relevant to the context, which read thus: _“32. Reverting to the recent decision of this Court in_ _**Sudhir N. and Ors.** (supra), the two Judges' Bench was dealing with the question of selection of in-service medical officers for post-graduate medical education under Section 5(4) of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Post-graduate Courses under the Service Quota Act, 2008. The provision has been extracted in paragraph 5 of the reported decision. It deals with the finalization of select list by the Post-graduate Course Select Committee strictly on the basis of seniority inservice of the Medical Officers and following such other criteria as may be prescribed. Dealing with that challenge the court noticed that Regulation 9 is a_ **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 14 _complete Code by itself and then proceeded to answer the question whether the State was competent to enact law on the matter of admission on the basis of the inter-se seniority of candidates. In that context the Court noted that the basis of selection must be strictly as per norms specified in the MCI Regulations. Any law with regard to that will be beyond legislative competence of the State legislature. The court noted that weightage for in-service candidates is made permissible by Regulation 9. That is the limited departure from the merit list criteria permitted by the Regulation itself. Neither in the case of_ _**Sudhir N.** (supra) nor in the case of_ _**Tirthani** (supra) the Court had the occasion to deal with the question regarding challenge to the proviso to Clause IV of Regulation 9.”_ 13. Therefore, in my considered opinion, since the provisions of Ext.P4 Dental Council of India revised MDS Course Regulations, 2007 and Dental Council of India, Master of Dental Surgery Course Regulations, 2017 are _pari materia_ with the Medical Council of India Regulations for Post Graduate Medical Admissions, the proposition of law laid down in ' _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan'**_ ( _supra_ ) is strictly applicable as the rule position stands as on today. So far as the in-service candidates are concerned, as per the provisions of the Regulations enacted by virtue of the powers under the Dentists Act, 1948, they are entitled only to secure weightage marks as incentive for rendering their service in remote or in difficult areas from 10% to 30%. Viewed in that regard, the principles of law laid down by the judgment in _**Dr. Dinesh Singh**_ **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 15 _**Chauhan**_ ( _supra_ ), clearly applies to the subject issue. 14. The question raised in this writ petition was elaborately considered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3313 of 2017 and has rendered a judgment dated 08.03.2017, wherein, it was held that the Regulations made under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India has primacy over the State regulations, and therefore, there can be no quota earmarked for in-service candidates. Moreover, Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2018 is under consideration of a larger Bench of the apex court, as per its order dated 24.04.2018, apparently on the basis of case advanced by the petitioners therein, the disparity with respect to the proposition of law laid down in the judgments pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12949 of 2018 _vis-a-vis_ _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ( _supra_ ). However, during the interregnum, it is directed as follows in paragraph 14: _“14. The decision in_ _**Dinesh Singh Chauhan** holds the field. It is based on a construction of Regulation 9(IV) which, at least at the present stage, cannot be brushed aside. The principle which has been adopted in that decision is consistent with the primacy which is attributed by the Constitution to Entry 66 of List I. This is the clear intendment of the words “subject to” in Entry 25 of List III. The grant of any interim relief_ **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 16 _at the present stage would amount to a mandatory final order which cannot be countenanced. MCI has, as an expert body, proceeded on a principled basis. Any attempt at this stage to read into Regulation 9(IV), a separate source of entry or a reservation for in-service candidates in degree courses would impinge upon Entry 66 of List I and the exercise of regulatory powers under the central statute.”_ 15. Taking into account all the aforesaid aspects and the facts and circumstances put forth by the petitioners in the writ petitions, I am of the considered opinion that, the proposition of law laid down by the apex court in _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ( _supra_ ) holds the field at present. In that view of the matter, the case put forth by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.9228 of 2018 has sufficient force. Taking into account the challenge made by the petitioners in the said writ petition, and realizing the legal intricacies, the State Government has amended the Prospectus. Even though the in- service candidates have a case that the rule of the game was changed after the selection process has started, which is deprecated by various judgments of the apex court as well as this Court, in my considered opinion, the same was done by the State Government in accordance with the proposition of law laid down in _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ( _supra_ ). Consequent to the law laid down by the apex court in the said **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 17 judgment and the interim order passed by the apex court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2018 quoted _supra_ , it cannot be said that the State Government has committed any illegality, but was only getting adapted to the requirement of law. Moreover, since the law laid down by the apex court in _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ( _supra_ ) is prior to the issuance of the Prospectus for admission to 2018-2019, petitioners cannot be heard to say that any legal right of the petitioners are infringed consequent to the issuance of the amended Prospectus. That apart, since a modality is prescribed in W.P.(C) No.196 of 2018 by the apex court, as per its order dated 24.04.2018, and since the issue has all India ramification, it is only proper and legal that the said modality prescribed is also followed by this Court in the matter of admission to the Post Graduate Dental courses _vis-a-vis_ the in-service candidates. 16. Even though learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12949 of 2018 submitted that, for the present year the quota provided in the Prospectus for in-service candidates may be retained, the said argument cannot be accepted for the reason, if that is done, it will be in absolute violation of the directives issued by the apex court in the judgment in _**Dr.**_ **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 18 _**Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ (supra) and the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.196 of 2018 specified above by the apex court, on 24.04.2018. 17. Resultantly, I am of the considered opinion that, petitioners in W.P.(C) No.9228 of 2018 are entitled to succeed. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.12949 of 2018 are not entitled to get any reliefs and it will stand dismissed. Since the reliefs sought for in W.P.(C) No.11091 of 2018 is a consequential relief to the other two writ petitions, and since the in-service candidates could not succeed, the petitioners in the said writ petition are not entitled to get any relief. Therefore, it will also stand dismissed. 18. When W.P.(C) No.9228 of 2018 was admitted to the files of this Court, an interim order was passed on 27.03.2018, directing respondents 1 to 4 to make the reservations to various categories only in accordance with the directives of the Supreme Court in the judgment in _**Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan**_ ( _supra_ ), with a further rider to comply also with the directions with respect to the weightage marks to be provided to the in-service candidates in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment. Therefore, the said interim order ## **W.P.(C) No.9228/18 & con. cases** 19 passed is made absolute. Sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** St/26.05.2018