The High Court of Kerala dismissed a review petition filed by a medical student seeking admission to Kannur Medical College. The Court held no error appeared on the face of the record and noted that the previous apex court and high court judgments regarding admission disputes had attained finality.
Review petition dismissed; no admission granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.
TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017/17TH SRAVANA, 1939
RP.No. 702 of 2017 (W) IN WP(C).13984/2017
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 13984/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 22-06-2017
REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH PETITIONER:
SETHU LAKSHMI N PEARSON AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.N.M.PEARSON, NIKARATHIL HOUSE, VADAKKEKARA PO, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN-683 522, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.N.SURESH SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN SRI.MOHAMMED SADIQUE T.A. SRI.V.S.ANU MON SMT.A.S.CHINJU DUTH SMT.DHANUJA VETTATHU
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 AND WRIT PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 AND 5 TO 15:
RP.No. 702 of 2017 (W) IN WP(C).13984/2017
:2:
| 6. SUMAYYA NAZRIN AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.SHAMEED N.H., DARU RAHMA NATHEKKAD, YUVAKALATHARANG ROAD, ELAMAKARA, PIN-682026, KOCHI. |
|---|
| 7. FATHIMA ZAHARA M.P. AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.MANU C.P., FATHIMAS, KEEZHALOOR PO, PIN-670 612, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 8. GOKUL R.B. AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, POURNAMI, MAMATHA NAGAR, 76-A, KAZHAKUTTAM PO, PIN-695 582, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 9. MUHAMMED ROSHAN AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.BAAVU, ACHERIVAYALIL, PEZHAKAPALLI PO, PIN-686 674, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 10. ARSHA MOHAN AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.MOHANAN, DEEPIKAS, ECHUR PO, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 11. AYSHA THASRIF E. AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED SHARIEF P.K., EDOTH HOUSE, MOOLAD PO, NADUVANNUR, PIN-673 614, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 12. RAJKIRAN S. AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.SUDHER RAJ P.P., LAKSHMI NIVAS HOUSE, NHANIYATHTHERU, PERAMBARA PO, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 13. HIMA M. AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.MURALEEDHARAN A., MYNAKAM HOSUE, NAMBIARPURAM, VADAKARA, PIN-673 101, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 14. MOHAMMED JASEM N. AGED 21 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAMMED K.P., NELLIYERY HOUSE, THOONEY PO, NADAPURAM, PIN-673 505, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 15. ALEENA DAVIS AGED 20 YEARS, D/O.DAVIS C.A., CHALISSERY BHAVAN, KODUVAYUR, PALAKAD, PIN-678 501, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 16. SAGAR S.NAIR AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.SATHIKUMAR, REVATHY HOUSE, BHAGAVATH NADA PO, PIN-685 501, BALARAMAPURAM, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, KERALA. |
| 17. RIZANA MOHAMMED KARUMANDAKAYIL AGED 22 YEARS, D/O.MOHAMMED, KARUMANDAKAYIL HOUSE, PULIKKAKADAVU, PIN-679 584, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. |
RP.No. 702 of 2017 (W) IN WP(C).13984/2017
:3:
AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL RASHEED, FEBIN MAHAL, KOTTAYAMPOYIL, PIN-670 691, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA.
R1 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY.HEALTH AND ALLIED SCIENCE
R3 BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE R5 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
RP.No. 702 of 2017 (W) IN WP(C).13984/2017
APPENDIX
| **ANNEXURE A1 ** | : ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.11.2016, ASC 100/16/MBBS/KARUNA |
|---|---|
| **ANNEXURE A2 ** | : ORDER DATED 7/03/2017 OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN SLP © 32580, 32581 OF 2017 AND CONNECTED CASES. |
| **ANNEXURE A3 ** | : ORDER DATED 10-07-2017 OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN SLP (C) 17080, 17181 & 17261 OF 2017. |
| ANNEXURE A4 | : ORDER DATED 14-07-2017 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISMISSING THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER. |
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V., JJ
R.P. No. 702 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13984 of 2017
Dated, this the 8th day of August, 2017
O R D E R
Ramachandra Menon , J.
This review petition has been filed at the instance of a student, who was desirous of getting admission to the first year MBBS course in the 5th respondent college for the academic year 2016 - '17. The sequence of events with regard to the admission procedure followed in the said institution leading to several rounds of litigation is discernible from the materials produced. The review is against the common verdict passed by this Court on 22.06.2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13984 of 2017 and connected cases, whereby the next round of litigation sought to be pursued by the students similarly situated like the petitioners herein was held as not maintainable, in view of the finality already attained by virtue of the verdict passed by the Apex Court on 22.03.2017 considering the subsequent course and proceedings including the orders passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee on 14.11.2016.
R.P. No. 702 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13984 of 2017
: 2 :
Medical College and not in respect of 5th respondent/Kannur Medical College in which institution the admission is sought for by the review petitioner. We find it difficult to agree with the above proposition as entire facts and figures were dealt with in detail in the verdict passed by us on 22.06.2017. The relevant orders passed by the Committee on 14.11.2016 in respect of the two institutions [two separate orders] were also considered by the Apex Court and a copy of the order dated 14.11.2016 passed by the Committee in respect of the 5th respondent institution was produced by the institution itself before the Apex Court along with an affidavit, which has been adverted to by this Court in the judgment dated 22.06.2017. It was after considering the entire facts and circumstances in respect of both the institutions, that the Apex Court passed the verdict holding that the Apex Court did not find any ground to call for interference with the order dated 14.11.2016 passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee. However, in view of the nature of grievance projected from the part of the aspirants, who were ordered to be given admission in the Karuna Medical College, by virtue of their better merits and credentials [substituting their names in the place of other ineligible persons who were sought to be inducted by the said institution] it was held that, since time had
R.P. No. 702 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13984 of 2017
: 3 :
already run out, they shall be given admission for the MBBS for the next academic year i.e., 2017-'18 to the requisite extent, simultaneously, making it clear that there shall be proportionate deduction in the number of seats allocable to the said institution for the said year. It was after attaining the finality to the matter as above, that the students of 5th respondent institution approached this Court by filing various writ petitions stating that no opportunity of hearing was given to them to substantiate the facts and figures and further that the order passed by the Committee on 14.11.2016 was not a subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court [as now contended by the review petitioner] and that the order considered by the Apex Court was only in respect of similar order dated 14.11.2016 passed in respect of the 'Karuna Medical College'. The said submission was considered meticulously with reference to the sequence of events and it was held by this Court [while passing common judgment] that the Apex Court had considered orders in respect of both the institutions and that the matters had become final by virtue of the interference declined, in turn declaring that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The said judgment clearly applies to the present case as well.
R.P. No. 702 of 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 13984 of 2017
: 4 :
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE
sd/-
SHIRCY V., JUDGE
kmd
/True copy/
P.A. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner established any error apparent on the face of the record to invoke the power of review against the common verdict passed by this Court.
Whether the Apex Court in the connected Supreme Court case considered the orders passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee in respect of the 5th respondent institution or only the Karuna Medical C
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari ChoudharyRelied on¶50
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (AIR 1995 SC 455). · Who else cites this
M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Government of Andra PradeshRelied on¶50
M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. Government of Andra Pradesh rep. by Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Anantapur [AIR 1964 SC 1372]
Parison Devi Vs. Sumitri DeviRelied on¶50
Parison Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] · Who else cites this
N. Anantha Reddy Vs. Anshu KathuriaRelied on¶50
N. Anantha Reddy Vs. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sethu Lakshmi N Pearson
State of Kerala
Kerala University of Health Sciences
Admission Supervisory Committee
Commissioner of Entrance Examinations
Principal Kannur Medical College
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
Shircy V.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
