Dismissed

Aiswarya Jayaram v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2017WP(C)/12328/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a SEBC student, challenged her exclusion from the list of candidates eligible for fee concession at a dental college. The court examined the selection criteria under the relevant Government Order and held that the list was drawn in accordance with the stipulations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for quashing the list of candidates selected for fee concession and for issuance of consequential directions was dismissed.

Aiswarya Jayaram Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 12328 OF 2015 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AISWARYA JAYARAM

¶8

D/O.C.H.JAYARAMAN, “PRIYA”, NEAR GOVERNMENT U.P. SCHOOL, VATTOLI, VATTOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 507.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.NAVEEN.T SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1.STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶12

2.THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

3.THE PRINCIPAL, ROYAL DENTAL COLLEGE, MANNARAPARAMBA, CHALISERY, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRINCY XAVIER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

:2:

¶17

WP(C).No. 12328 OF 2015 (M)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE NEET RANK/DATA SHEET BELONGS TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION RESULT OF FIRST YEAR BDS REGULAR EXAMINATION PUBLISHED ON 02/12/2014.
EXHIBIT-P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(RESPONDENT) NO. 2022/13/H&FWD DATED 12/06/2013.
EXHIBIT-P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNUMMAL.
EXHIBIT-P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNUMMAL.
EXHIBIT-P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 20/07/2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES SELECTED FOR FEE CONCESSIOBN IN THE 3RD RESPONDENT COLLEGE.
EXHIBIT-P8-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/11/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P9-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/11/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

vgd

PA TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2017

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash

¶30

Ext.P7 list of candidates selected for fee concession and consequential directions in relation to the same.

¶31

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶32

Petitioner is undergoing BDS course in the third respondent college and she is a SEBC candidate. As per Ext.P3 and Ext.P6

¶33

order issued by the first respondent SEBC candidates are eligible for concession in the matter of annual tuition fee. As per the orders annual tuition fee has to be remitted initially and the balance amount will be refunded to eligible candidates. Accordingly, petitioner remitted the entire annual tuition fee and completed her first year examination. It is only at that point of time the petitioner came know that he was not included in the list of candidates selected for fee concession in the third respondent college.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶35

¶36

On an enquiry according to the petitioner it was understood that more than three candidates selected for fee concession are not at present undergoing studies in the third respondent college. Due to the above reason, petitioner was neither included in the list nor the benefit of fee concession was extended to her till date. Yet another contention advanced is that, the method adopted by the second respondent to include candidates eligible for fee concession is not capable of achieving the objective for which the benefit of the fee concession was introduced by the Government. As per Ext.P3, the candidates will be selected on the basis of their rank position. By doing so, candidates like the petitioner, whose annual income is far below compared to the candidates included in the list, are excluded being from considered for the benefit of fee concession. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶37

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioner.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶39

¶40

Among other contentions it is stated that, petitioner was an applicant for the entrance examination for admission to professional degree courses,2013. She had attended entrance examination conducted by the second respondent and secured Medical rank 3255 and Ayurveda rank 3259. Her Kerala State Rank list of NEET (UG) for MBBS and BDS course was 4455. Her annual family income furnished in the application was Rs.1,14,500/-. She was eligible for reservation under Socially and Educationally Backward Classes under Ezhava category. She got allotment in BDS course at Royal Dental College, Palakkad during the allotment conducted on 13.9.2013 under SEBC category. It is also stated that, as per G.O.(MS)No.2022/13/H&FWD dated 12.6.2013 the principles regarding fee concession for eligible candidates coming under BPL and SEBC categories are mentioned in paragraph 5, which read thus:-

¶41

“5. As per the agreement executed between the Government and the Kerala Self financing Dental College Management Consortium, the Managements have agreed

¶42

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶43

¶44

to give concession in the fees collected to the candidates belonging to BPL families as per state norms/students having low annual family income up to a maximum number of 14% of those allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in each institution. The Managements have agreed to give fee concession to the students belonging to SEBC category numbering up to a maximum of 25% of those allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination in each institution. The details of concessional fees shall be as follows :

¶45

a) 14% of candidates from among those allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in each institution coming under BPL families as per Kerala State norms irrespective of rank or category need only pay an annual tuition of Rs.23,000/-. If enough number of candidates belonging to BPL category as above are not available, the balance number of candidates will be allowed concessional fees of Rs.23,000/- per annum to be selected from among those allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in each institution from those having lower family income,

¶46

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶47

¶48

irrespective of rank or category. However, SC/ST category of candidates, who already enjoy fee concession benefits, will not be considered for the above purpose.

¶49

b) 26% of candidates who have been allowed SEBC status by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in each institution shall also pay an annual tuition fee of Rs.44,000/-. They will be selected on the basis of the rank. However, if the required number of SEBC candidates is not available among the students allotted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in the institution, the remaining number of candidates will be selected from among General Category on the basis of income, irrespective of rank or category as explained in clause (a), with the total number SEBC students eligible for concessional fee not exceeding 26% as above.

¶50

c) The same principle as explained in Clause (a) is applicable to the minority institutions also.

¶51

d) All other candidates as explained in clause (a), (b) & SC/ST shall pay an annual tuition fee of Rs.1,50,000/-. The fee benefits will be granted only after the closure of

¶52

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶53

¶54

allotments to the Private Self Financing Dental Colleges. Hence, candidates (except SC/ST) alloted to these institutions will have to remit the fee of Rs.1,50,000/provisionally at the time of allotment. The

¶55

Commissioner for Entrance Examinations will refund the balance amount to the candidates who will become eligible for fee benefit after the completion of the allotment process, based on the verification of Income Certificate to be produced by them.

¶56

c) Annual fee for SC/ST students shall be paid by the Government to the concerned College, at the rate of uniform fees fixed by the Government.”

¶57

Thereupon it is contended that, out of 30 member of candidates alloted by the 2^nd respondent to Royal Dental College, Palakkad in accordance with Clause 5(a) of Ext.P3 G.O., quoted above, 14% was allotted as BPL/LFI candidates, i.e., (14% of 30), 04 number of candidates were allowed the said benefit. The candidates who were included in BPL/LFI list had income up to only of Rs.50,000/-. As per the income verification report from the District Collectorate, Kozhikode

¶58

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶59

¶60

annual family income of the petitioner was re-assessed as Rs.1,12,500/-, so the petitioner was not included in BPL/LFI . Therefore, as per Clause 5(b) of Ext.P3 G.O., 26% candidates having SEBC status allotted to this institution, was eligible for annual tuition fee of Rs.44,000/-. The number of candidates allotted by the 2^nd respondent to the 3^rd respondent institution under SEBC fee benefit was 8 (26% of 30) in number. Out of the 8 candidates, who were included in the list under this category, the last candidate has Medical rank 3985, whereas, the medical rank of the petitioner was 4455. Hence, the petitioner was not included in the SEBC fee concession list . Therefore, in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the prospectus the petitioner's claim to enlist her name in the fee concession category of Ext.P5 list cannot be sustained. Therefore, the respondents seek dismissal of the writ petition.

¶61

I have perused the pleadings and documents on record and heard learned Government Pleader.

¶62

The sole question to be considered is whether the

¶63

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶64

¶65

petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition and get a place in Ext.P7 concession list. The fact discussion made above would make it clear that, the petitioner is not eligible in accordance with the terms and conditions contained under Ext.P5 and relevant portion of the said G.O. is quoted above. It s evident from the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner that, Ext.P7 list was drawn in accordance with the stipulations contained under Ext.P3 G.O. and going by the tenor and terms of the contention it is evident that, petitioner was not eligible to get a place in Ext.P7 list. Therefore, in my considered opinion, Ext.P7 list is drawn in accordance with the stipulations contained in Ext.P3 G.O., and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any arbitrary, illegal or unfair act on the part of the respondent in drawing the list. That being the situation I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there being no illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities on the part of the

¶66

W.P.(C) No.12328 of 2015

¶67

¶68

respondents in drawing of Ext.P7 list. Even though petitioner has allegedly submitted Exts.P8 and P9 representations I do not think that the same is entitled to be considered in view of the financial stipulations contained under Ext.P3, and the petitioner is not eligible to secure the fee concession.

¶69

Necessarily, writ petition has to fail, and accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶72

dlk/7/12/

Aiswarya Jayaram v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aiswarya Jayaram 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Rajendran Vs Ms.Mercy

D.Johny Vs Sri Kamala Vardhana Rao

Rupesh Ravindran Vs Kerala Water Authority

Jayakumar Vs Rishiraj Singh

M/S.Nikunjam Construction Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Kerala

C.O.Poulose Vs the Tahsildar,Aluva