Dismissed

Soumya Baby v. the Commissioner for Entrance Exam.

Kerala HC7 Apr 2009WP(C)/5210/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition filed by final year B. Pharm students seeking admission to the M.Pharm course, holding that they were ineligible under the prospectus terms as they had not passed their qualifying examinations before the result declaration date.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioners not eligible for admission.

Soumya Baby Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Exam. — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 5210 of 2009(U)

PETITIONERS:

SOUMYA BABY.J.KOTHAKERIL HOUSE, THRIKOTHAMANGALAM, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

JISHA.M.S., MYALAMOOTTIL JJ NIVAS, THOTTABHAGOM PO., THIRUVALLA.

¶11

MINTU ELSA TOM, VADAKKETHALACKAL HOUSE ALUMOODU, KAYAMKULAM.

¶12

DEEPA JOSEPH, DEEPTHI BHAVAN, MATTOM SOUTH, THATTARAMBALAM PO., MAVELIKARA.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

¶16

COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM. REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶19

SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009 ALONG WITH WP(C) NOS. 6367/2009 & 5482 / 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 5210 /2009

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXHIBIT P1(a) P1(b), P1(c) &P1(d): TRUE COPIES OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BASED ON THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3(a) P3(b), P3(c) &P1(d): TRUE COPIES OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY 1^st RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RANKED LIST BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR M.PHARM COURSE, 2009. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6/02/2009.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

scm

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C) Nos.5210,6367 & 5482 of 2009

¶31

Dated this the 7^th day of April, 2009

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Petitioners were final year B. Pharm students of Mahatma Gandhi University and Kannur University, aspiring for admission to M. Pharm Course. Exhibit P2 is the prospectus published and

¶34

the clause, which is relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions, reads as under;

¶35

“ However those students of final year B. Pharm

¶36

who have appeared/appearing for the final year B. Pharm examination are also eligible to apply for the entrance examination, provided they pass the examination as on the date of declaration of the entrance examination result.”

¶37

A reading of this clause shows that final year

¶38

B.Pharm students are also eligible to appear in the entrance examination, but however, to be eligible for admission, they should have passed the B. Pharm examination as on the date of declaration of the results of the entrance examination. It was on

¶39

W.P.(C) Nos.5210,6367 & 5482/2009

¶40

¶41

the basis of the above clause in the prospectus that all the petitioners, who were final year B. Pharm students appeared for the entrance examination.

¶42

The results of final year B. Pharm course was declared by the M.G. University on 16/03/2009 and Kannur University has not so far declared the results. It is the admitted position that the results of the entrance examination was published on 6/02/2009. If that be so, going by the terms of prospectus, petitioners herein, having not passed the qualifying B. Pharm examination as on 6/02/2009, when the result of the entrance examination were declared, are ineligible to seek admission. Necessarily, therefore, the petitioners cannot seek any order in these writ petitions enabling them to claim admission for M. Pharm course, 2008, for which admissions have been completed on the basis of Exhibit P2 prospectus and classes have also commenced.

¶43

Though, it is the case of the petitioners that it was on

¶44

account of the delay on the part of the Universities that the declaration of results are delayed, resulting in their loosing chances of admission, still having regard to the provisions in the prospectus, they cannot seek admission this year.

¶45

In so far as the petitioners in WP(C) No.5210/2009

¶46

W.P.(C) Nos.5210,6367 & 5482/2009

¶47

¶48

are concerned, they were the students of a college affiliated to M.G. University. It is stated that on the date of counseling, confidential mark lists were produced and therefore they should be treated as eligible. As already noticed, going by the provisions of the prospectus, what is relevant is that they should have passed in the examination, as on 6/02/2009, which necessarily has to be based on the declaration of the results, which has taken place only on 16/03/2009. Otherwise, among one batch of students, such of those who have produced confidential mark lists alone will secure admission, while a majority of them will remain ineligible. If that be so, the fact that confidential mark lists were produced on the date of counselling, which took place much later on 6/02/2009, does not alter the situation to the advantage of the petitioners in WP(C) No.5210/2009.

¶49

Writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed.

¶50

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶51

scm

Soumya Baby v. the Commissioner for Entrance Exam.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soumya Baby v. the Commissioner for Entrance Exam.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Kunjikrishnan Vs Government of India

Kadavayil Muslim Jama-Ath Vs the Kerala Wakf Board and Another

Mafeeda Vs the Union of India

Bobby George Vs the Insurance Medical Officer and Others

S.Savithri Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Jemesheer.K. Vs the Tahsildar