Dismissed

Dr.Lakshmi R.Lakshman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jul 2017WP(C)/23424/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Post Graduate Doctor sought admission to BAMS after missing the initial application deadline for seat allotment despite qualifying in NEET UG 2017. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that parting from established procedure after final rank list publication would compromise transparency and credibility.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction to allot BAMS seat at this stage.

Dr.Lakshmi R.Lakshman 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2017/26TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23424 of 2017 (C)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

DR.LAKSHMI R.LAKSHMAN

¶9

MBBS, MD & M.TECH, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.RAHUL LAKSHMAN, DEVASWARATH MANA, TEMPLE ROAD, ELANKUNNAPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI 682 503.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.). SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI. SRI.ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTATION BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

3. THE COMMISIONER OF ENTRACE EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695,001.

¶15

BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. V. MANU.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DXY

¶18

WP(C).No. 23424 of 2017 (C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. 28419 DATED 07.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE TRAVANCORE-COCHIN AND COUNCIL OF MODERN SCIENCE TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. 194769 DATED 10.09.2009 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT TO THE PETITIONER FOR OBTAINING DEGREE OF MASTER'S SURGERY IN OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3: PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 07.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE AMRITHA VIDHYAPEETHAM UNIVERSITY FOR MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY IN NANOMEDICAL SCIENCES.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: PHOTOCOPY OF CERTIFICATE OF FELLOWSHIP IN NUTRITIONAL AND ENVIORNMENTAL MEDICINE (INMA) DATED 13.04.2013 ISSUED BY INDIAN NUTRITIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBTI P5: PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNCELING RANK LETTER DATED 04.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, SHOWING NEET UG 2017 EXAMINATION RESULTS BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 12.07.2047 RENDERED IN WPC.NO. 22955/2017 T.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7: PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.07.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

\TRUE COPY\

PA TO JUDGE

DXY

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

W.P.(C).No. 23424 of 2017

¶34

--------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of July, 2017

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner is a Post Graduate Doctor holding MBBS and MS degrees. She also holds M.Tech degree in Nanomedical sciences. With a view to study Ayurveda by joining for BAMS course, the petitioner participated and qualified in the NEET UG 2017 Examination. Allotment of seats for BAMS course in the State is done by the third respondent, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. As per the norms fixed by the Government, the aspirants for admission to the course shall apply for allotment to the third respondent on the strength of their qualification in NEET UG Examination. The petitioner, however, omitted to apply to the third respondent for allotment after qualifying in the NEET UG 2017 Examination. Consequently, the petitioner was not considered for allotment. The petitioner, therefore, preferred a

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C).No. 23424 of 2017

¶39

representation before the Government seeking directions to the third respondent to consider her case also for allotment for admission to BAMS course. Ext.P7 is the representation preferred by the petitioner before the Government in this connection. The writ petition is filed thereafter alleging that Ext.P7 representation is not being considered. The relief sought in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to accept application from the petitioner for allotment of seat for BAMS course.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government pleader.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court has granted relief to an identically placed person, as per Ext.P6 judgment. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a person having exceptional and extraordinary academic records and at the advanced age of 40, she has participated and qualified in the NEET UG Examination out of her strong desire to study Ayurveda and the omission on the part of the petitioner in applying

¶42

W.P.(C).No. 23424 of 2017

¶43

¶44

for allotment of seats, in the circumstances, is bona fide and it is unjust, therefore, to deny her opportunity to participate in the allotment process. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has now crossed the age of 40, she is not entitled to participate in the NEET UG Examination any more which is the qualifying examination for admission to BAMS course and that therefore, if she cannot get admission for BAMS course this year, she may not be able to pursue the course in future.

¶45

The leaned Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that public notice was given on 01.02.2017 calling upon the aspirants for admission to medical courses in the State including BAMS course, to apply for allotment and in response to the said notice, 51,068 candidates have applied for allotment. It was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that initially the candidates were given time to apply for allotment till 09.03.2017 and later the time was extended upto 11.06.2017 and thereafter the time was again

¶46

W.P.(C).No. 23424 of 2017

¶47

¶48

extended upto 05.07.2017. It was also pointed by the learned Government Pleader that the provisional rank lists of the candidates have been published thereafter on 13.07.2017 and final rank lists of the candidates have been published on 15.07.2017. It is further pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that if the petitioner is permitted to prefer application for allotment at this stage, the final rank lists already published have to be revised. According to the learned Government Pleader, in the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this proceedings.

¶49

The fact that the rank lists of the candidates applied for allotment to various medical courses including BAMS course have already been published is not disputed by the petitioner. It is beyond dispute therefore, that if the petitioner is permitted to apply for allotment at this stage, the rank lists already published have to be revised for the purpose of assigning a rank to the petitioner. If the rank lists published are revised after the same are finalised, the same would

¶50

W.P.(C).No. 23424 of 2017

¶51

¶52

certainly affect the credibility and transparency of the allotment process. When an allotment process is governed by the terms notified in the prospectus, it is settled that the authorities concerned shall scrupulously follow the same. Interference by courts with the allotment processes of this nature would not only delay the allotment process but would also affect the interests of many. In the said view of the matter, I am of the view that in so far as the petitioner has not preferred application for allotment within the time stipulated and in so far as the allotment process has reached the stage after the finalisation of the final rank lists, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

¶53

Ext.P6 judgment is one rendered in a case where the candidates have applied for allotment within the time stipulated. However, the petitioners therein could not upload the NEET results in the web portal of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations within the time stipulated in the prospectus for the same. Since rank lists

¶54

were not finalised at the stage when the writ petitions

¶55

W.P.(C).No. 23424 of 2017

¶56

¶57

were filed, this Court directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to accept the NEET results of the petitioners therein. The petitioner in this writ petition and the petitioners in Ext.P6 case are not similarly placed. As such, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment.

¶58

In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the respondents concerned in considering the claim of the petitioner for allotment for BAMS course in colleges of her choice, if there are vacant seats in such colleges in the State at the culmination of the allotment process.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR,

JUDGE

Dxy

// true copy //

Dr.Lakshmi R.Lakshman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Lakshmi R.Lakshman 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

Francis Vs State of Kerala

Mary Rose Joseph Vs Director, Central Board of Secondary Education

Petrishia Luncing Christopher Siby Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Ajai Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. Vs Thilakan.N

Valli Ramanan Vs Government of India