Allowed

Musafar Ahammed v. University of Calicut

Kerala HC10 Nov 2014RP/727/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition arose from an order in a writ case where the University delayed publishing supplementary results. The court, noting a vacant general quota seat and the petitioner's rank (10) versus the last admitted rank (41), accommodated the petitioner in the available vacancy instead of ordering provisional admission, dismissing the need for a sponsored seat reservation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner accommodated in the vacant general quota seat for M.A. Women's Studies in the University of Calicut.

Musafar Ahammed Vs University of Calicut — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/19TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

RP.No. 727 of 2014 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.22259/2014 DATED 29-08-2014.

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

MUSAFAR AHAMMAD, S/O.NASER AHAMMED, AGED 24 YEARS, BADMINTON VILLA, THEKKAYIL PARAMBU, NORTH BEYPORE POST, EAST NADUVATTOM, KOZHIKODE- 673 015.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER, SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, CALICUT UNIVERSITY POST, TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 673 635, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶12

2. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, PAREEKSHA BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 673 635.

¶13

3. THE DIRECTOR,

¶14

CENTRE FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, TENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 635.

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SC.

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

RP.No. 727 of 2014

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:-

¶22

ANNEXURE R1 (1) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/11/2014 SUBMITTED BY NISHAR MUHAMMED TO THE HONOURABLE CHANCELLOR.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶27

¶28

R.P. No. 727 of 2014

¶29

in W.P.(C) No. 22259 of 2014

¶30

¶31

Dated, this the 10^th day of November, 2014

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is an aspirant to have an admission to M.A. Women's Studies in the respondent University. Because of the delay in publishing the result of IV^th Semester B.A. History Supplementary/Improvement examination, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 22259 of 2014, which was disposed of on 29.08.2014, recording the submission made from the part of the University that the result would be published before the last date of October, 2014.

¶34

The petitioner has approached this Court by filing review petition pointing out that, while passing the judgment the relevant portion of the direction to have considered the application of the petitioner for admission to M.A Women's Studies provisionally, subject to the result to be published, was omitted to be incorporated in the judgment.

¶35

R.P. No. 727 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 22259 of 2014

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

A statement has been filed by the respondent;

¶38

paragraphs 4 to 6 of which, as relevant, read as follows :

¶39

“4. It is submitted that even though this Honourable Court while dictating the judgment directed the Review Petitioner's application may be directed to consider to consider provisional and unfortunately, the same was omitted when the certified copy of the judgment was received. Therefore R.P. No. 727/2014 was filed before this Honourable Court and an order was passed on 25.09.2014 to keep one seat vacant. It is submitted that there are altogether 24 seats for M.A. Women Studies Course and all the seats were filled up on 25.09.2014 except seas for SC/ST and BPL candidates.

¶40

It is that the results of t he examination has been received on 29.10.2014 and on preparation of index marks the review petitioner has got 844.6363 and with this marks he is entitled to be placed in the 10^th rank position. It is submitted that a person with index marks 727.5833 with rank No.41 was the last person to be admitted for M.A. Women's Studies in the General Merit category.”

¶41

R.P. No. 727 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 22259 of 2014

¶42

: 3 :

¶43

A general seat for M.A. Women Studies 2014 batch became vacant on 10.10.2014 when a candidate joined for PF Course 2014 obtained for TC for joining another college. This seat is kept vacant in compliance with the interim order passed by this Honourable Court. It is submitted that there are 95 eligible candidate in the rank list for admission to M.A. Women's Studies Course 2014, who were qualified and who had applied before the last date of admission. The respondents have received a representation from the students included in the Rank list alleging that the Department has under political and administrative pressure illegally delaying the admission process. A copy of the representation dated 04.11.2014 received by the University is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R1(1). Therefore, it is submitted that appropriate direction may be issued in the above Review Petition so that the seat reserved can be filled up.”

¶44

It is brought to the notice of this Court that a vacancy exists in general quota and that the petitioner's position is at Rank No. 10. Last admitted candidate in the general quota was with Rank No. 41. In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the

¶45

R.P. No. 727 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 22259 of 2014

¶46

petitioner could be accommodated in the vacancy now available for M.A. Women's Studies under the General Merit Quota. It is ordered accordingly.

¶47

The Review Petition stands disposed of.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶50

(JUDGE)

¶51

kmd

¶52

The title of the verdict dated 10/11/2014 in R.P. No. 727/2014 in W.P.(C) No. 22259/2014 is corrected and substituted as “ORDER” instead of “JUDGMENT”, as per order dated 26/11/2014.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

Registrar (Judicial)

Musafar Ahammed v. University of Calicut

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Musafar Ahammed v. University of Calicut

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

Antony K.R Vs N.a.Kripa

P.K.Ashraf Vs Thangavelu

Rajagopalan T.N. Vs State of Kerala

Sangeetha Vijoy Arora Vs K.Ramachandran

Ashok A.M. Vs Transport Commissioner

Pushpa R. Vs the Chief Manafger.the Authorised Officer, the Federal Bank Ltd.