Disposed

Niza Kaladharan v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Kerala HC5 Oct 2020WP(C)/20330/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the admission process for the BFA course, alleging procedural violations regarding interviews. The Court observed that holding interviews would serve no purpose given the petitioner's low rank and directed respondents to correct the prospectus wording for future admissions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; the College was directed to ensure the prospectus reflects the real intention and is followed from the next year.

Niza Kaladharan Vs Mahatma Gandhi University — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 13TH ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.20330 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NIZA KALADHARAN AGED 23 YEARS D/O.KALADHARAN, RIYA NIVAS, AROOR PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 683534.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN SRI.V.R.RAJESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS POST, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ROAD, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM - 686560, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶11

2 RLV COLLEGE OF MUSIC AND FINE ARTS MINI BYPASS TRIPUNITHURA ROAD, HOSPITAL ROAD, FACT NAGAR, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682301, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL.

¶12

3 PRINCIPAL RLV COLLEGE OF MUSIC AND FINE ARTS, MINI BYPASS TRIPUNITHURA ROAD, HOSPITAL ROAD, FACT NAGAR, TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682301.

¶13

BY SRI.ASOK M. CHERIAN, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.VINITHA B., GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.20330 OF 2020(M)

¶18

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This writ petition is filed pointing out the

¶21

procedural irregularities in conducting admission to the BFA course by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

¶22

Pursuant to Ext.P1 press release and Ext.P2 prospectus issued by the 2^nd respondent relating to admission to undergraduate courses in various forms of Arts, petitioner submitted her application. It is stated that as per Ext.P1 as well as Ext.P2 the College has to publish a provisional list of candidates after conducting an interview; but the second respondent published the provisional list without conducting any interview contrary to Ext.P1 press release as well as Clause 6 of Ext.P2 prospectus.

¶23

Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that there were altogether 340 applicants against a total of 40 seats out of which 20 are for open merit candidates and 20 for candidates eligible

¶24

WP(C).No.20330 OF 2020(M)

¶25

¶26

for reservation. It is stated that 40 candidates

¶27

from open merit as against the 20 seats and 40 candidates from among candidates eligible for

¶28

communal reservation were invited for the interview as against the 20 seats available for them. It is stated that 80 candidates were called for interview as against the 40 seats. Since the petitioner was Rank No.150 among 340 candidates, she was not invited for the interview.

¶29

Petitioner points out that though she

¶30

submitted a complaint on 22.09.2020 within 2 days of the publication of the provisional list, as provided

¶31

in Clause 6 of Ext.P2, she was not even given any reply. According to petitioner the admissions are being made without following the prescribed procedure.

¶32

A reading of Ext.P2 prospectus would show

¶33

that the second respondent proposed to conduct the interview on the very same day for which admission

¶34

WP(C).No.20330 OF 2020(M)

¶35

¶36

could also be made. It is seen that parents were

¶37

also supposed to report in the College along with candidates appearing in the interview.

¶38

Though there is force in the contentions raised by the petitioner that provisional list should have been published after conducting the interview as provided in Ext.P2, I find that since the petitioner was only at Rank No.150 no purpose

¶39

will be served in holding up the process of admission as far as the petitioner is concerned. It

¶40

is also pertinent to note that it would not be practicable to interview all the 340 candidates as against the 40 seats.

¶41

Moreover it is also seen that there is

¶42

some ambiguity in Clause 6. The first part of clause 6 says selection of the applicants would be based on entrance test and interview and in accordance with

¶43

the MG University laws and a provisional list of such candidates would be published and they would be

¶44

WP(C).No.20330 OF 2020(M)

¶45

¶46

invited for interview. Clause 7 provides that the candidates who are found eligible in the interview, verification of documents, and also based on their conduct and character, would be admitted on the date of interview itself for which their parents shall also accompany them.

¶47

In the above circumstances there is no reason to interfere with the admission that too at the instance of a candidate at Rank No. 150.

¶48

However, respondents 2 and 3 shall see that the

¶49

provisions in the prospectus are worded correctly reflecting the real intention and to follow the same from the next year.

¶50

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE

¶52

¶53

WP(C).No.20330 OF 2020(M)

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT COLLEGE DATED 27.07.2020 BEARING NUMBER A2/651/2020/RLVCMFATPNTPRA.

¶58

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROSPECTUS IN RESPECT OF THE COURSES VIDE EXHIBIT P1 NOTIFICATION OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT COLLEGE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST OBTAINED IN HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 21.05.2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR POWER, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 31.03.2012 BEARING NO. 486/2012/KCV/MOSP/A. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ONLINE. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROVISIONAL LIST OF CANDIDATES PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.09.2020 MADE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25.09.2020 MADE TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNIVERSITY.

Niza Kaladharan v. Mahatma Gandhi University

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niza Kaladharan v. Mahatma Gandhi University

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

Carlos George Vs Dr.Vijayakumar.G.Sarkar

Mohanan v. Vs Kerala Water Authority

Mohanan v Vs Kerala Water Authority

Abhilash K.Thomas Vs the District Level Authorization Committee

Team One Advertising Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

Usha Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kwa