Dismissed

Aleena Achi Joseph v. the Commissioner for Entrance Examination

Kerala HC4 Oct 2013WP(C)/18563/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench held that admitting a lower-rank candidate first violated a Division Bench interim order protecting higher-ranked applicants. The petitioners' admission was reinstated. A vacancy was directed for the other applicant despite her lower rank to allow her same course continuation.

What did the court decide?

Admission of petitioner reinstated; admission of lower rank respondent set aside and vacated in same course directed instead.

Aleena Achi Joseph Vs the Commissioner for Entrance… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/12TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 18563 of 2013 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALEENA ACHI JOSEPH, D/O.JOSEPH, AGED 18, NIRAVATHU HOUSE, PARIYARAM P.O, PUTHUPALLY, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.NIDHEESH.S.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, SANTHI NAGAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶11

*ADDL. R.2. IMPLEADED:

¶12

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

*IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 04/10/2013.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ROSHAN ALEXANDER.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-10-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO. 20540/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Prv.

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.18563/2013-U:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1:TRUE COPY OF THE PLUS TWO CERTIFICATE.

¶21

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD.

¶22

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE DATA SHEET.

¶23

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE IST ALLOTMENT MEMO.

¶24

P5:TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR 2ND ALLOTMENT NO.CEE/3737/2012/KEAM/2013/TAX DATED 09/07/2013.

¶25

P6:TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROSPECTUS.

¶26

P7:TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE ADMISSION OF THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P8:TRUE COPY OF THE E MAIL COPY OF THE COMPLAINT.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶33

========================

¶34

W.P.(C). Nos. 18563 & 20540 of 2013

¶35

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2013

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The issues involved in both these cases are closely inter related, which pertains to the admission for B.Arch. Both the writ petitions were filed by the same petitioner, the 1^st one before the spot admission conducted, wherein the prayer is to direct the respondents to conduct spot admission as per Clause 11.6.9 of Ext.P6 prospectus and grant allotment to the petitioner in any of the Government Engineering Colleges in respect of the seats which are vacant due to non availability of candidates.

¶38

The petitioner stands ranked at serial No. 126 for B.Arch

¶39

and a copy of the rank list has been produced as Ext.P9 in W.P. (C).No. 20540 of 2013. By virtue of her better credentials, she is eligible to have allotment in any of the Government Engineering Colleges. While the proceedings were pending as above, the petitioner was called for spot admission and came to be enlisted in Ext.P9 rank list dated 15.08.2013 (in W.P.(C).No. 20540 of 2013) wherein the petitioner has been listed at serial No. 6, by

¶40

W.P.C. Nos. 18563 & 20540 of 2013 -2-

¶41

virtue of National Aptitude Test rank at 126. The 4^th respondent was not even placed in Ext.P9, pursuant to the spot admission held on 15.08.2013. W.P.(C).No. 20540 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner because of the course and events whereby the 2^nd respondent granted admission to the 4^th respondent, ignoring the better rights and credentials of the petitioner.

¶42

As a matter of fact, when the said writ petition (W.P.(C). No. 20540 of 2013) came up for consideration before this Court on 23.08.2013 the following interim order was passed:

¶43

“The learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st and 2^nd respondent seeks for short time more to ascertain the factual position and to file a statement. Sri. Sunil Kumar enters appearance on behalf of the 4^th respondent.

¶44

If any vacancy in Government quota for B.Arch exists in second respondent/third respondent, it shall be kept vacant till the next date of posting.

¶45

Post on 27.08.2013.”

¶46

The admission given to 4^th respondent is sought to be justified with reference to Ext.P10 interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C).No. 19504 of 2013.

¶47

Heard the learned counsel for the parties concerned and

¶48

W.P.C. Nos. 18563 & 20540 of 2013 -3-

¶49

also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the other respondents.

¶50

During the course of hearing, the learned Government Pleader brought it to the notice of this Court that, the admission given to the 4^th respondent is only by virtue of Ext.P10 order, which reads as follows:

¶51

“Government Pleader seeks time to file counter affidavit.

¶52

There would be an interim order to the effect that no person below the rank of 128 shall be given admission to any Government College, without first giving admission to the petitioner in a Government College.”

¶53

What has been ordered by Ext.P10 is to the effect that, no person below the rank of 128 shall be give the admission to any of the Government Colleges, before giving admission to the concerned petitioner in a Government College. This is by virtue of the factual position that, the rank of the concerned petitioner, who is the 4^th respondent in W.P.(C).No. 20540 of 2013, happens to be at '128'. There is no dispute with regard to the rank of the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 20540 of 2013 i.e., 126. This being the

¶54

W.P.C. Nos. 18563 & 20540 of 2013 -4-

¶55

position, even going by the contents of Ext.P10 order, the prohibition is only in respect of the admission to be given to any person below the rank of 128, which will not bar the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 20540 of 2013, who stands placed at '126'. Any person below the rank of 128 means, any person standing in the queue after the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 19504 of 2013 i.e., 129, 130, 131 onwards. The petitioner herein who stands placed at rank No. 126, is entitled to have a seat in Government Engineering College much prior to any chance to be given to the 4^th respondent (petition in W.P.(C).No. 19504 of 2013), to have such placement.

¶56

This being the position, this Court finds that, the admission given by the concerned respondent to the 4^th respondent in the 2^nd respondent Institute allegedly in compliance of the Ext.P10 interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court is wrong and misconceived, which is set aside, holding that, the said vacancy ought to have been filled up by accommodating the petitioner who is at rank No. 126 and who finds a place in Ext.P9 proceedings in W.P.(C).No. 20540 of 2013, pursuant to

¶57

W.P.C. Nos. 18563 & 20540 of 2013 -5-

¶58

the spot admission held on 15.08.2013. It is ordered accordingly.

¶59

However, since it is brought to the notice of this Court that, there is a vacancy for B.Arch in the Government Engineering College, Thrichur, this Court directs the concerned respondents to accommodate the 4^th respondent against the said vacancy, so that the 4^th respondent can pursue the studies in the

¶60

very same course, based on her rank at 128 in the NAT examinations. The concerned respondents are directed to give effect to the order forthwith.

¶61

The State of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department is directed to take further steps and pass necessary/consequential orders so as to facilitate the studies by the petitioner as well as by the 4^th respondent in the concerned colleges as ordered above and also for the inter University transfer of the 4^th respondent from the M.G. Universtiy to the Calicut University. The State of Kerala,

¶62

represented by the Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department is 'suo motu' impleaded as the additional 2^nd and 5^th

¶63

W.P.C. Nos. 18563 & 20540 of 2013 -6-

¶64

respondent respectively in both the cases and learned Government Pleader entered appearance for the said additional respondent as well.

¶65

It is further made clear that, the issue with regard to the scope of Clause 11.6.9 of the prospectus, which is stated as pending consideration before the Division Bench in the relevant proceeding, is left open. The verdict passed by this Court in these proceedings is only in view of the particular facts and circumstances and the same will not be a precedent in any other case. The petitioner shall produce the T.C and such other documents so as to facilitate admission. Intervention, if necessary, shall be made from the part of the Government/Departmental authorities to obtain T.C from the concerned College.

¶66

The writ petitions are disposed of.

¶67

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶68

kp/-

Aleena Achi Joseph v. the Commissioner for Entrance Examination

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aleena Achi Joseph v. the Commissioner for Entrance Examination

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

Kana Kizhakkeveetil Kunhikrishnan Vs the Appellate Authority

N.Aboobacker Vs the District Collector and Others

Palanadan Mohammed Vs the District Collector

K.V. Krishnakumar Vs M.S. Jaya

Muhammed Sabir Vs State of Kerala

Jose Joseph Vs the Thahasildar