Allowed

Aneesha Remesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2011WA/1025/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal against Single Judge declaring appellant's admission to Ayurveda Nursing Certificate Course invalid due to insufficient grades. High Court held admission valid as prospectus did not mandate C+ in every subject and allowed confusion caused by respondents.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; Single Judge's judgment vacated; Respondent directed to release withheld result and issue certificate.

Aneesha Remesh Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933

¶6

WA.No. 1025 of 2011()

¶7

--------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20065/2010 Dated 04/07/2011

¶8

APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER

¶9

¶10

ANEESHA REMESH, KUMALUTHARAYIL HOUSE, KALAKKAL, VAIKOM P.O., PIN-686141.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA MEDICAL FOUNDATION, AROGYABHAVAN, M.G.ROAD, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

SANTHIGIRI INSTITUTE OF PARAMEDICAL SCIENCES, SANTHIGIRI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695589.

¶17

ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA FOR R3 SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) FOR R3

¶18

MS.T.B.REMANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶20

ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶22

.................................................................... W.A.No.1025 of 2011

¶23

.................................................................... Dated this the 21^st day of July, 2011.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶26

This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge declaring the admission given to the appellant for the Certificate Course in Ayurveda Nursing by the 3^rd respondent as invalid.

¶27

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, who took notice on admission.

¶28

The facts leading to the controversy are the following. The appellant, who has passed SSLC with an average of 53.5% of marks, applied for admission for the Certificate Course in Ayurveda Nursing based on Ext.P2 prospectus issued by the 3^rd respondent. On consideration of the appellant's SSLC certificate produced by her and the

¶29

W.A.No.1025/2011

¶30

¶31

application filed by her, the 3^rd respondent found the appellant eligible, and she was admitted to the course in the year 2009. On the verge of completion of the course, the appellant was informed by the Principal of the College that according to the norms of the Education Department, the requirement for admission to the Course is C+ grade in each and every subject in SSLC which the appellant does not have. When the appellant was prevented from completion of the course on this ground she approached this Court and this Court issued interim orders permitting her to continue the course for another two months and to write the examination. The appellant's results are withheld while results of others were published. The learned Single Judge after hearing, accepted the contention of respondents 1 & 2 that C+ grade is required in each and every subject, which the appellant does not have and accordingly, her admission was declared invalid. This Writ Appeal is filed against this judgment.

¶32

It is seen from Ext.P1 SSLC certificate issued to her

¶33

W.A.No.1025/2011

¶34

¶35

that the appellant has secured C+ in two subjects and above C+, i.e. B and B+, in four subjects. In two subjects she has only D+, which is the shortage from minimum qualification for admission according to the respondents. However, it is declared in Ext.P1 SSLC certificate issued to her that she is eligible for higher studies. It is further stated therein that the minimum eligibility for higher studies is D+ grade for each paper. We do not know after declaring that the appellant is eligible for higher studies in the SSLC certificate issued to her

¶36

how respondents 1 & 2 can prescribe another level of achievement in SSLC for admission to their certificate course. Even in the prospectus issued by the Directorate, they do not make it clear that C+ grade is required for each and every subject. On the otherhand, what is stated is that a pass in the SSLC examination with 50% marks (C+ grade) is required which is the eligibility to undergo Plus 2 course. On a plain reading of Ext.R2(a) prospectus issued by the Directorate we feel C+ grade is the average marks of 50% for all subjects, and

¶37

W.A.No.1025/2011

¶38

¶39

there is nothing to indicate in the prospectus that C+ grade is required for each and every subject.

¶40

The more surprising aspect is that the course study underwent by the appellant in our opinion cannot be considered as higher education in the real sense. The Certificate Course in Ayurveda Nursing is nothing but a training which makes a person eligible to work at the lowest end, probably as an Assistant in an Ayurvedic Clinic. In any case we notice that the confusion is created by the respondents and the appellant should not be made the victim of the confusion created by the respondents. We also notice that the admission given to her and continuation of her studies even if she is not eligible is not attributable to her. We, therefore, allow the Writ Appeal by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and by directing the 2^nd respondent to release the withheld result and issue certificate to her.

¶41

Even though we have allowed the Writ Appeal on the peculiar facts of this case we have not examined meticulously

¶42

W.A.No.1025/2011

¶43

¶44

the qualification for admission, and so much so we leave freedom to the 2^nd respondent to issue proper prospectus specifying the qualifications on realistic basis, so that confusion in future itself can be avoided.

¶45

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶46

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

¶47

Aneesha Remesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesha Remesh v. State of Kerala

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

State of Kerala Vs Kap (India) Projects Constructions

Cini Singh Vs State of Kerala

Meena Ashokan Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sapna Maria Gomez Vs the University of Kerala and Another

Rajeev Viswan Vs State Information Commissioner

T.Haridasan Vs Union of India and Another