Dismissed

Rakhi.K.Devesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Jun 2015WP(C)/13751/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge dismissed the writ petition for admission reservation. The court held that while the petitioner's community is listed as OBC for government services, it is not included in the SEBC list for professional courses. The 2006 GO for services does not confer SEBC status for exams, and the petitioner failed to produce required documents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed.

Rakhi.K.Devesh Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/25TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 13751 of 2015 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

--------------

¶8

RAKHI K. DEVESH (MINOR), REP. BY HER FATHER AND GUARDIAN DEVESH NARAYANAN K.N., KAVIKKAL HOUSE, BHOODANAM COLONY, ANAPPARA, PULPALLY, SULTHANBATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, FIFTH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

3. THE TAHASILDAR,

¶15

SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 592.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ROSHAN D. ALEXANDER.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rvs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 13751 of 2015 (T)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

------------------------

¶23

EXT P1 :	A TRUE COPY OF THE	RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS.
EXT P2 :	A TRUE COPY OF THE 2006.	GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 24,
EXT P3 :	A TRUE COPY OF THE 23, 2015 ISSUED BY	COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED JANUARY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULPALLY.
EXT P4 :	A TRUE COPY OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.	LETTER DATED APRIL 7, 2015 OF THE
EXT P5 :	A TRUE COPY OF T SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	HE COMPLAINT DATED APRIL 8, 2015 PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ------------------------

¶25

EXT R2(A)	: A TRUE COPY OF 01/01/2015.	THE	GO(P)NO.1/2015/BCDD DATED
EXT R2(B)	: A TRUE COPY OF 05/01/2015.	THE	GO(MS)NO.4/2015/H.EDN. DATED
EXT R2(C)	: A TRUE COPY OF THE	JUD	GMENT DATED 12/08/2014 IN WA
	NO.839/2014 ARISING	FROM	WP(C)NO.14577/2014.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶30

W.P(C). No.13751 of 2015

¶31

--------------------------------------Dated this the 15^th day of June, 2015.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner claims to have applied for reservation as per the prospectus of the KEAM, 2015. The petitioner's claim for reservation is on the basis of her belonging to the community of 'Edanadan Chetty', which, the petitioner contends, has been included under the State list of Other Backward Community (OBC) by Ext.P2 dated 24.11.2006. The petitioner contends that she had applied for reservation as a Socially and Educationally Backward Community (for brevity, SEBC) and she is entitled to the same, which has been declined by the respondents.

¶34

The Commissioner for Entrance Examination, the 2^nd respondent, has filed a detailed Counter Affidavit. At the outset it is pointed out that the SEBC list for admission to professional courses and the OBC list for reservation to Government

¶35

WP(C) No.13751 of 2015

¶36

¶37

employment, are two different lists prepared by the Government. In fact, the prospectus itself by Annexure XI had the list of SEBCs, which did not contain the Community to which the petitioner claims her belonging. It is also submitted that, an SEBC candidate has to produce Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, which admittedly the petitioner has not produced at the time of application. The learned Senior Government Pleader also relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court produced at Ext.R1(c).

¶38

A reading of Annexure XI in the prospectus of KEAM, 2015 would indicate that 'Edanadan Chetty' is not a Community included in the list of SEBCs. In such circumstances, the petitioner could not have applied under the reservation category, since the prospectus did not include the same as an SEBC. The fact that the petitioner applied as a member entitled to reservation of OBC does not at all prevent the respondents from treating her for admission to the professional courses as a person from a Community, which is not entitled to reservation as a SEBC.

¶39

WP(C) No.13751 of 2015

¶40

¶41

Further, as pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, Ext.P2 is a notification issued by the Government as early as in 2006 to ensure that the Community has adequate representation in Government Services. This does not at all entitle the Community members to seek admission to professional courses as a SEBC member, for reason of the Community not being included in such list. The list of SEBC eligible for reservation as distinguished from the OBC entitled to reservation in Government Services; has also been appended to the prospectus for the entrance examination.

¶42

As to the decision at Ext.R2(C), a claim was raised by members of the Chetty Community on the ground that by a misnomer their community has been included in the SEBC list as 'Jhetty'. The decision produced at Ext.R2(c) affirmed the decision of the learned Single Judge, which refused to accept the contention of the petitioners therein and found on the basis of authenticated documents that the Community included as 'Jhetty' was a distinct separate community from 'Chetties'. Further, on the question of reservation given to the OBC and SEBC also, the

¶43

WP(C) No.13751 of 2015

¶44

¶45

finding was that the SEBC Communities included under the list for reservation to professional courses, is distinct from the Communities included as OBC for the purpose of Government employment.

¶46

For all the above reasons, the writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.

¶47

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶48

Rakhi.K.Devesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakhi.K.Devesh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jesna Jain Vs the Union of India

Pappachan P.P Vs State of Kerala

Murali Vs the State of Kerala

K.G.Mohanan Vs K.K.Jalan

Omkar Security Agency Vs the Medical Superintendant, Esic Hospital

Ajith Kumar Vs District Collector