Dismissed

Sudha Krishna T.K v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016WP(C)/10159/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Kerala dismissed a writ petition by a petitioner seeking declaration regarding 15% All India quota seats in medical colleges, ruling it cannot be entertained as she would derive no benefit due to time limits fixed for counselling and admission already expiring, citing prior dismissals on similar grounds.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that it cannot be entertained as the petitioner will derive no benefit due to expiring time limits for admission.

Sudha Krishna T.K Vs the State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10159 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SUDHA KRISHNA T.K., AGED 17 YEARS, D/O.DR.T.K.SUDHAKARAN, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER GUARDIAN, SUDHAKARAN, THANNIKUNNATH HOUSE, P.O.NHANGATTIRI, VIA.PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PRESEPIN-679 303, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT CHEMBAKASSERY PARAMBU, CHEVAYUR P.O.,KOZHIKODE-673 017.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 108

¶12

3. THE DIRECTOR MEDICAL EDUCATION, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

4. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

R1, R3 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE R2 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.S.VAIDYANATHAN, CGC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 10159 of 2016 (T)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

-------------- EXHIBIT P-1	--------- TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 15.9.2015	ORDER IN W.P(C)NO.959/2015
EXHIBIT P-2	TRUE COPY OF THE COURT IN W.P(C)NO	JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME .629/2015
EXHIBIT P-3	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER	COPY OF THE MARKLIST OF THE
EXHIBIT P-4	TRUE COPY OF THE SUPREME COURT IN	SCHEME APPROVED BY THE HON'BLE W.P(C)NO.443/1992
EXHIBIT P-5	TRUE COPY OF THE COURT IN W.P(C)NO	JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME .443/1992 DATED 7.6.2012
EXHIBIT P-6	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER DATED	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 26.8.2015
EXHIBIT P-7	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 15.9.2015 O	JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.27842/2015 F THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P-8	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 29.9.2015	JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.2133/2015
EXHIBIT P-9	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 1/12/2014	JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.934/2014
EXHIBIT P-10	TRUE COPY OF THE	NOTIFICATION DATED 26.3.2015
EXHIBIT P-11	TRUE COPY OF THE HEALTH SERVICES B COMMISSION.	REPORT FILED BY THE DIRECTOR OF EFORE THE SATE HUMAN RIGHTS
EXHIBIT P-12	TRUE COPY OF THE	JUDGMENT IN SHRC NO.12691/2015.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶22

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

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.10159 of 2016

¶29

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2016

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner had though applied for selection for admission to MBBS course in the Medical Colleges in the State for the academic year 2015-16, she was not selected for admission. The petitioner had secured only 55.7% marks in the entrance examination. She instituted W.P.(C) No.27842/2015 before this Court alleging that she is eligible to be called for counselling. The said writ petition came up for admission on 15.9.2015 . This Court dismissed the writ petition holding that even if the petitioner is found eligible, no relief can be granted, for, the outer limit of the period fixed for counselling is over.

¶32

W.P.(C)No.10159 of 2016

¶33

¶34

The petitioner, thereafter filed another writ

¶35

petition as W.P.(C)No.28706 of 2015 alleging that the prospectus published for admission to MBBS course for the academic year 2015-16 provided that 15% of the seats are reserved for candidates selected for admission through All India Pre-Medical Entrance Examination and that she was entitled to be admitted for the course against said 'All India Quota'. The said writ petition was also dismissed by this Court holding that the outer time-limit fixed for admission against the said quota is also over.

¶36

After about six months, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The relief sought is a declaration that the State of Kerala is not entitled to fill up any seats falling within the 15% quota reserved for All India PreMedical Entrance Examination and that the said quota can be filled up only from the ranked list prepared for the said purpose by the jurisdictional authority of All India PreMedical Entrance Examination.

¶37

W.P.(C)No.10159 of 2016

¶38

¶39

I am afraid, this writ petition cannot be

¶40

entertained. In the light of the decisions rendered by this Court in the earlier writ petitions preferred by the petitioner, she will not be benefited even if the declaration sought in the writ petition is granted. As such, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation as to the purpose for which this writ petition is filed, this Court is unable to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition, in the circumstances, is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶43

smm

Sudha Krishna T.K v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudha Krishna T.K v. the 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

V.Radhakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala

Nri'S Relief & Welfare Co-Op Society Ltd. Vs Director of Ports

Jameela Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

K.J.Thomas Vs Sobha Kamla Sudarsana Rao and Others

Soosy George Vs Government of Kerala

Sathaneesh John Vs State of Kerala