Allowed

Cochin University of Science and Technology - Cusat v. Anandhu P.S.

Kerala HC7 Dec 2021WA/1583/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court bench quashed the lower court's order directing Cochin University of Science and Technology to admit a Kudumbi Community candidate. The court held that strict adherence to percentage-based reservation with carry-forward adjustments was necessary, and no seat was available in 2021 due to excess allocation in 2020.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; Single Judge’s judgment set aside; writ petition dismissed; University relieved from statutory duty to grant admission.

Cochin University of Science and Technology - Cusat… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶7

WA NO. 1583 OF 2021

¶8

¶9

KERALA

¶10

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5:

¶11

1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY - CUSAT REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOCHI-682 022.

¶12

2 REGISTRAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY , KOCHI-682 022.

¶13

3 DIRECTORATE OF ADMISSIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY , KOCHI-682 022.

¶14

4 SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY , KOCHI-682 022. BY ADV SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO

¶15

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT:

¶16

1 ANANDHU P.S. S/O. SANTHOSH P.G.(LATE) , PAKKAKKALPADI HOUSE, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM,PIN-682 304.

¶17

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001.

¶18

BY ADVS. RASSAL JANARDHANAN A. SRI.TEK CHAND, LEARNED SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2021

¶26

SHAJI P.CHALY,J.

¶27

This appeal is preferred by respondents 2 to 5 in W.P.(C) No.19086/2021, challenging the judgement of a learned Single Judge dated 28.10.2021, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the 1^st respondent herein and the appellants are directed to grant admission to the writ petitioner under either of the courses i.e., BBA LL.B(Hons.) and B.Com LL.B(Hons) by applying the reservation of Kudumbi Community and permit the petitioner to deposit the fees. Appellants were further directed to complete the process within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgement. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgement of the learned Single Judge, this appeal is preferred. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows;

¶28

Petitioner is a resident of Kerala State and is a member of Kudumbi

¶29

Community, belonging to the socially and educationally backward classes, and entitled for reservation for admission to the educational institutions within the State of Kerala. The case of the writ petitioner is that, he intends to pursue either of the

¶30

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶31

¶32

two law graduate programmes offered by the 1^st appellant University and he opted both as directed in the prospectus issued by the 2^nd appellant viz., Registrar of the 1^st appellant University for the year 2021 and also sought for the benefit of reservation as he satisfied all the criteria claiming for the same. According to the writ petitioner, even if a candidate, who came in the first position within the Kudumbi category and allotted a seat in one of the courses, petitioner is entitled for allocation of a seat in the other course but, petitioner is not alloted with a seat that he is entitled to, and it was accordingly that the writ petition was filed.

¶33

The grounds of challenged in the writ petition is that, the 1^st appellant University vide UO No.AC.A1/ADMN/2005 dated 17.11.2008 adopted the Government Orders mandating reservation of 1% of the total seats in every courses for the benefit of Kudumbi candidates and as per the same, petitioner is entitled to obtain admission in one of the courses offered by the 5^th respondent; that while providing for separate reservation extending benefit to certain of the categories entitled to reservation, the 2^nd appellant has afforded a legitimate expectation that reservation of seats are for each of the Law programmes separately and therefore, the 2^nd appellant cannot, after submission of applications and conduct of entrance examination, act otherwise than in terms of Exhibit P2 Prospectus 2021 for law programmes. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the appellants have violated

¶34

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶35

¶36

Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and therefore, interference is required in the matter.

¶37

In the writ petition, the appellant University has filed a statement contending that, since only 1% of 30 seats i.e., 0.3 each will come to the share of Kudumbi Community in a particular year, it cannot be allotted 1 seat each for each course every year. Therefore, 0.3% for each year is carried forward to the next year. Usually when it reaches 0.5 or above and a candidate becomes available in that year, he will be given a seat. In that process, the excess score given to the Kudumbi Community will come to 0.5% since it was adding 0.5 to arrive at a figure of 1, a seat would be granted. That would be set off against 0.3 in each course for the next year. Still there will be an excess of 0.2 to be adjusted and that will be set off against 0.3 available to that community in the succeeding year. The remaining 0.1 will be added to the 0.3 available to that community in the next year and such an adjustment will go on till a figure of 1 is arrived at when the score exceeds 0.4 by the community candidate.

¶38

In the year 2020, since Kudumbi Community had not been allotted any seat for the preceding two years i.e., 2018 & 2019, when the community had to its credit 0.4, and two candidates from the community became available, they were given admission in B.A LL.B and B.Com LL.B courses and as a result, the community had

¶39

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶40

¶41

gained an excess of 0.6 each for the said courses. Therefore, in the year 2021, the 0.3 available to them had to be set off against the excess 0.6, which the community got in 2020 and therefore, the community cannot be allotted 1 seat in LL.B course this year. The seat matrix for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 are produced along with the statement and marked as Annexures I to III and a separate seat matrix in respect of Kudumbi Community alone for B.A LL.B and B.Com LL.B courses prepared for the sake of clarity, are produced and marked as Annexures IV & V respectively.

¶42

Therefore, according to the University, the writ petitioner was not entitled to

¶43

secure any relief but the learned Single Judge, on an incorrect appreciation of the terms and conditions set out in the prospectus, has arrived at a finding that the prospectus for admission is sacrosanct and cannot be deviated. That apart, it was found that from clauses 14.22 and 14.24 of the prospectus for 2021, it is evident that respondents have reserved for professional programme 1% seats for Kudumbi Community and the communal reservation was not only for non professional but professional programmes; that concededly, petitioner belongs to Kudumbi Community and had obtained 2^nd position in BBA-LL.B (Hons.) as well as in B.Com – LL.B (Hons.) Entrance Examination. The candidate, who has come in first position belonging to the Kudumbi category, has been admitted to one of the courses and therefore, petitioner is entitled to seek admission in the other course; that in other

¶44

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶45

¶46

words, the appellants cannot take away the reservation as they are separate courses in view of the categorical stand taken in the counter affidavit; that the terms and conditions of the prospectus, especially provided 1% of reservation for professional programmes and therefore, the respondents cannot go by the practice and precedence of giving reservation as per their choice by subtracting and adding the percentage as per the stand taken in the counter affidavit by relying upon the Annexures produced.

¶47

The paramount contention advanced in the appeal is that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that there are only 30 seats allocated in each of the 5 year LL.B courses and 1% reservation for the Kudumbi Community will come to only 0.3 and it cannot be treated as one seat for every year; that the learned Single Judge ought to have found that in the previous year's admission i.e., admission for

¶48

the year 2020 even though the total allocation for Kudumbi Community was only 0.4%, 1 seat each was given to the Kudumbi Community in both the programmes in 2020 and by allocating two seats, an extra 0.6 was given to Kudumbi Community in the year 2020, which was carried forward as -0.6 (minus 0.6) to the year 2021 and therefore, no seats can be allotted to the Kudumbi Community; that admission to various courses offered by the University are carried out as per the seat matrix prepared for admission every year; that it was based on the Annexures, the roster

¶49

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶50

¶51

for admission under reservation quota for B.A.-LL.B and B.Com–LL.B are prepared and admission to the Law programmes for the years 2019, 2020 & 2021 was granted. Therefore, according to the appellants, there was no seat available to be granted to the Kudumbi Community in the reservation quota; but the learned Single Judge, unmindful of the manner in which the roster was prepared, directed the University to provide admission to the writ petitioner, which according to the appellants, would upset the whole admission process and the reservation pattern followed by the University.

¶52

We have heard Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai & Sri.Peter Jose Christo, for the appellants, Sri.Rasal Janardhanan A. for the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶53

Respective counsel have addressed their arguments in accordance with the contentions discussed above. The communal reservation is dealt with under clause 14.22 of Exhibit P2 prospectus for the year 2021, which reads thus:

¶54

" 14.22 Communal Reservations:

¶55

Seats are reserved for candidates belonging to Kerala Scheduled Castes, Kerala Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally Backward Class(SEBC) of Kerala with separate pattern of reservation for Non Professional and Professional Programmes as detailed below:

¶56

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶57

¶58

Percentage wise reservation for Professional Programme:

¶59

Kerala Scheduled Caste(KSC)	8%
Kerala Scheduled Tribes( KST)	2%
Socially and Ezhava/Thiyya/ Billava(ETB)	9%
Muslim(MSM)	8%
Educationally Other Backward Hindu(OBH)	3%
Backward Latin Catholic including Anglo Indian	3%
Other Backward Christian (OBX)	1%
Classes (SEBC) Dheevara (DHV)	2%
of Kerala Viswakarma (VSK)	2%
Pot-making Communities (PMC)	1%
Kudumbi	1%
Total for SC/ST and SEBC	40%

¶60

On a perusal of the tabular column, it is categoric and clear that the seat reserved for Kudumbi Community in the category of socially and educationally backward classes of Kerala is 1%. Likewise, the seats are provided on a percentage basis to every socially and educationally backward class of Kerala. Therefore, one thing is clear, a candidate applying to a course offered by the University is very well aware that he/she is entitled to get reservation on the basis of the pattern provided as per the prospectus.

¶61

It is an admitted fact that there are only 30 seats for each of the LL.B programmes and the percentage of reservation can never be converted to 1 seat for each of the LL.B programmes. It is also an admitted fact that going by the communal reservation policy of the University, only 0.3% of seats are available to a Kudumbi Community out of the 30 seats provided. It was with the intention of providing seats,

¶62

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶63

¶64

roster is fixed for each of the courses by making such mathematical calculations, which is the only way to provide seats to any reserved category. Therefore, it is clear, by providing 1% reservation to the Kudumbi Community, every year a candidate of Kudumbi Community may not get a seat in the reserved category if the total seats available are 30. It is also clear that the University had during the previous year i.e., 2020 has granted reservation to two candidates of Kudumbi Community i.e., 1 each in B.A.- LL.B (Hons.) and B.Com – LL.B (Hons.), and to provide admission to a kudumby candidate in the reserved category the figure available was only 0.4% and therefore, in order to attain the figure of 1, the University has added 0.6. The said addition has to be subtracted for the next ensuing year i.e., 2021 in order to maintain the communal reservation policy as per the prospectus.

¶65

In the University, originally, there was only, BBA – LL.B (Hons.) course. In the year 2013. B.Com – LL.B (Hons.) was also introduced and the intake was fixed as 30 seats each for both the courses. Therefore, from the year 2013 onwards, there are two courses for 5 Year LL.B as specified above, with an intake of 30 students each in the courses. Therefore, a fresh roster was started with respect to the BBA – LL/B (Hons.) course, and a separate roster for the B.Com – LL.B (Hons.).

¶66

In order to understand the manner in which the roster was prepared for

¶67

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶68

¶69

allotting the seats to the Kudumbi Community in the reserved category since 2013, it

¶70

would be convenient to demonstrate the same with mathematical precision, through

¶71

a chart provided by the University, it reads thus:

¶72

Year	Previous years’ carry forward	Actual entitlement	Sum of previous years’ carry forward and the actual entitlement	Seats Allotted
2013	0	.3	.3	0
2014	.3	.3	.3+.3=.6	1 seat (.6+.4=1) .4 has been given in excess of the quota for which the community is actually entitled and therefore it has to be reduced from next year’s allotment
2015	-.4	.3	-.4+.3=-.1	0
2016	-.1	.3	-.1+.3=.2	0
2017	.2	.3	.2+.3=.5	1 seat (.5+.5=1) .5 has been given in excess of the quota for which the community is actually entitled and therefore it has to be reduced from next year’s allotment
2018	-.5	.3	-.5+.3=-.2	0

¶73

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶74

¶75

2019	-.2	.3	-.2+.3=.1	0
2020	.1	.3	.1+.3=.4	1 seat (.4+.6=1)
				.6 has been given in excess of the quota for which the community is actually entitled and therefore it has to be reduced from next year’s allotment
2021	-.6	.3	-.6+.3=-.3	0

¶76

On an analysis of the above said aspects, it is categoric and clear that the stand adopted by the learned Single Judge directing the appellants to provide 1 seat to the writ petitioner in the year 2021 would upset the communal reservation pattern and policy adopted by the University and it would definitely interfere and hamper the admission process of the University. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner finally submitted that by the seat reservation pattern in the prospectus, the writ petitioner had a legitimate expectation that he would get admission to the course in the year 2021 and further that if the facts and figures were properly demonstrated in the prospectus as is now shown, it would have been clear to the students applying for seats in the communal quota. In our view, there is no much force in the said submission for the basic reason that the percentage of reservation is clearly stated in the prospectus apart from the total number of seats available, which

¶77

W.A.No.1583 of 2021

¶78

¶79

would make the situation explicit and specific. It is also explicit from clause 14.24 of the prospectus that admission will be governed by the rules of the University in force and as amended from time to time.

¶80

We have evaluated the rival submissions and we are of the clear opinion that going by the manner in which the communal reservation is provided by the University, the writ petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the writ petition. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that interference is required to the judgement of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we set aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge and consequentially, the writ petition would stand dismissed.

¶81

Upshot of the above discussion is that, the writ appeal is allowed.

¶82

Sd/- S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶83

smv

¶84

Sd/- SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

Cochin University of Science and Technology - Cusat v. Anandhu P.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cochin University of Science and Technology - Cusat v. Anandhu P.S.

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

Pretty Rachal Koshy Vs Social Justice Department

Charles Biju Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar Varma Vs State of Kerala

Agatti Island Kera Karshaka Sangom Vs Union Territory of Laksadweep

Raji Antony, Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Shafeed Vs the Director of Medical Education