Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Rahul S Krishnan

Kerala HC2 Aug 2021WA/773/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ appeals filed by the State challenging a single-judge judgment that directed the sanction and disbursement of e-grant benefits to SC/ST students admitted under management quota in a self-financing medical college, relying on the state of W.A. No. 2513 of 2015. The court held that such benefit entitlement is a committed state liability and the distinction violated Arti

What the court decided

AI extract

State of Kerala Vs Rahul S Krishnan — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY MONDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943 WA NO. 773 OF 2021

¶7

JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2021 IN WP(C) 1176/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN W.P.(C):

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶10

2 DIRECTOR OF SC/ST DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT, NANDAVANAM,TRIVANDRUM-695 033.

¶11

3 DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, DISTRICT OFFICE, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 4TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):

¶14

1 RAHUL S KRISHNAN, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.SURESH KUMAR,MADHAVAM,GDRA-19, GREEDALE VILLAS,MUDAVAN MUGHAL,POOJAPPURA.P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 012.

¶15

2 APARNA JAYAN, AGED 23 YEARS

¶16

D/O.V.JAYAKUMAR,KARTHIKA,THIRUMALA, TRIVANDRUM-695 006.

¶17

3 PRINCIPAL,

¶18

KARUNA MEDICAL COLLEGE,VILAYODI,CHITTOOR,PALAKKAD-678 103.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY SRI. V.T. RAGHUNATH R3 BY SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR)

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2021, ALONG WITH W.A. NO. 803/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021

¶22

: 2 :

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶24

PRESENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶28

MONDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶29

WA NO. 803 OF 2021

¶30

JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2021 IN WP(C) 12990/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,

¶31

ERNAKULAM

¶32

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN W.P.(C):

¶33

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶34

2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶35

3 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶36

4 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

¶37

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶38

5 THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN, P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033.

¶39

6 THE DISTRICT SCHEDULED CASTES OTHER ELIGIBILITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,

¶40

CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 001.

¶41

BY ADV. SRI. ROBIN RAJ M.K. SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶42

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 7TH RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):

¶43

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 3 :

¶44

1 VIVEK SURENDRAN S/O.SURENDRAN, SOUPARNIKA, PERISSERI P.O., CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689 126

¶45

2 SURABHI S.

¶46

D/O.SATHEESH KUMAR, SURABHI BHAVAN, PARAMUKAL, KARAKONAM, POOVACHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 572.

¶47

3 VIVEK K. ABHILASH S/O.S.ABHILSH, PRADEEP NIVAS, KUNNINPURAM, CHAIKOTTUKONAM, MARUTHATHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 122

¶48

4 THE PRINCIPAL

¶49

KARUNA MEDICAL COLLEGE, VILAYODI, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 103.

¶50

R1 TO R3 BY SRI. ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R4 BY SRI. GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)

¶51

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2021, ALONG WITH W.A.NO. 773/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶52

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021

¶53

: 4 :

¶54

Dated this the 2^nd day of August, 2021.

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶57

The captioned writ appeals are filed by the State and its officials challenging the common judgment dated 04.03.2021 of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 12990 of 2020 1176 of 2021, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and directed the appellants to take immediate steps for sanction and disbursement of e-grant benefits due to the writ petitioners who are belonging to the scheduled community undergoing MBBS course.

¶58

The case projected by the appellants was that the students have secured admissions in a private self financing college namely Karuna Medical College, Palakkad without securing allotment from the list prepared on the basis of the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET), and consequently by the Controller of Entrance Examinations, making them ineligible. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment, the appeals are preferred.

¶59

Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeals are as follows:

¶60

The petitioners, students of Karuna Medical College, Palakkad and members belonging to schedule caste, who are undergoing MBBS

¶61

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 5 :

¶62

course have filed the writ petitions seeking a direction to the appellants to take urgent steps for sanction and remittance of the entire e-grant benefits due to them, with the college authorities immediately and to restrain the Medical College from making demands of fee from the writ petitioners. In fact, 100 students were admitted to Karuna Medical College for MBBS course during the academic year 2016-2017. The admissions made by the college were cancelled by the Admission Supervisory Committee appointed by the State Government on 02.10.2016, which order was upheld by this Court. Thereupon, fresh allotments to all the 100 seats were made on 07.10.2016, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. It was the case of the petitioners that 70 students who were already admitted in the College by the Management were found eligible for readmission and 30 students were found ineligible, and fresh appointment was given to 30 candidates against those seats.

¶63

According to the writ petitioners, they are students admitted to the course pursuant to the allotment made on 07.10.2016 and they were admitted under the SC/ST category. But, the e-grant benefits were denied to the writ petitioners by the Director of the Scheduled Castes Development i.e., the 5^th appellant in W.A.No. 803 of 2021. It was, thus, aggrieved by the action of the 5^th respondent, the writ petitions were preferred.

¶64

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021

¶65

: 6 :

¶66

The case projected by the writ petitioners was that after 28.09.2016 i.e., the date on which the Hon'ble Apex Court passed orders in Civil Appeal No. 9862 of 2016, there cannot be any admission to private medical colleges in the management quota. The writ petitioners were admitted on 07.10.2016 and therefore, the admissions secured by them cannot be treated as under management quota. The sum and substance of the contention advanced was that as the writ petitioners were admitted under the management quota, there cannot be a further classification among the Scheduled Caste students for the purpose of e-grant benefits.

¶67

On the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the Government, it was argued that the rank of the last candidate who was admitted to the course through the centralised allotment process was 11490 and the writ petitioners were far below in the rank list. It was also submitted that the first petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 12990 of 2020 was serial No. 91235 in the rank list and there were about 80,000 students above the writ petitioners who aspired for admission. It was further pointed out that the writ petitioners were admitted in the Karuna Medical College under management quota. Though this Court has set aside the initial admission made by the management and made fresh admission to the courses, the admission granted to the writ petitioners were, in fact, under management quota only and not on merits.

¶68

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021

¶69

: 7 :

¶70

In order to substantiate the contention, reliance was placed on Ext. R1(b) communication issued by the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee, in which the Chairman of the Committee observed that the admission of the students in Karuna Medical College during 2016-2017 was made by the Management themselves. It was further submitted that when the other medical colleges in Kerala were part of the common admission process, Karuna Medical College alone stood outside the common admission process and made admissions of their own. Therefore, according to the Government, it would not be proper to pay e-grant benefits to the students who were admitted under the management quota. Apart from the same, it was also pointed out that the admissions were made in the year 2016-2017 and therefore, there is considerable delay in filing the writ petitions in the years 2020 and 2021.

¶71

The paramount contention advanced by the Government was relying upon Ext. R1(a), G.O(Rt.) No. 2314/2016/H&FWD dated 20.08.2016, whereby the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala, was directed to make arrangements for counselling in the Private/Management/NRI quota seats in all the Private/Self Financing Medical/Dental Colleges or any Private/Deemed University from the NEET List following the reservations and quotas agreed to with the Colleges during the previous year. It was also made clear therein that

¶72

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 8 :

¶73

admission to 50% of merit seats will be done based on inter se rankings as per Kerala Engineering Agricultural Medical Entrance Examinations (KEAM).

¶74

The Government has also relied upon Ext. R1(b) communication dated 01.06.2019 from the Chairman of the Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee addressed to the Department of Scheduled Caste Development, Thiruvananthapuram conveying that admission process for the academic year 2016-2017 to Karuna Medical College was conducted directly by the College management. So also, the Government has heavily relied upon Ext.R1(d) Government Order dated 02.07.2009 produced in the writ petition, whereby comprehensive guidelines were issued for the grant of educational allowance to SC/ST/OEC students. Relying upon the said orders, it was contended that the educational concession, including fee for the professional course in private self financing institutions, would be as decided by the Government/ Government agency/ University in regard to SC/ST/OEC students who are admitted in the professional courses in Government recognised self financing institutions from the rank list prepared by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and through the allotment memo issued by the Commissioner and from the rank list of Directorate of Medical Education, Directorate of Health Services and Government recognised agencies like Nursing Council.

¶75

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021

¶76

: 9 :

¶77

We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader for SC/ST Department Sri. M.K. Robin Raj, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Medical College Sri. George Poonthottam and Sri. Arun Mathew Vadakkan for the writ petitioners/respondents 1 to 3, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

¶78

The issue that arose for consideration before the learned single Judge was whether the students who were admitted under management quota in the self financing medical college are entitled to get e-grant benefits. The learned single Judge, in fact, considered the issue taking into account Ext. P5 letter produced by the writ petitioners dated 06.05.2017 issued by the District Scheduled Caste Development Officer, Palakkad, whereby it was pointed out that the SC/ST students who were admitted in the Karuna Medical College pursuant to the orders of this Court and approved by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations are entitled to get educational concessions.

¶79

It was also found by the learned single Judge that it was pursuant to the admission process carried out at the instance of the Admission Supervisory Committee that the writ petitioners were included in the allotment list and therefore, it cannot be legally presumed that the writ petitioners were admitted by the college authorities under management quota. In fact, this question was

¶80

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 10 :

¶81

considered by this Court in W.A. No. 2513 of 2015 and held that the SC/ST students admitted to the management course directly by the management are eligible and entitled to secure e-grant and other educational benefits.

¶82

It was also held thereunder that merely because the students belonging to the SC/ST category secured admissions in management quotas, that would not take away the rights and benefits granted to them by virtue of the Government orders and on the basis of the benefits extended to the members of the SC/ST community under the Constitution of India. Learned Special Government Pleader also pointed out that, in a similar matter pending before the Apex Court from another State, operation of the judgment is stayed.

¶83

The issue with respect to the classification made by and between the students belonging to the SC/ST communities undergoing studies in the educational institutions run by Government and private management as per Government orders was also taken into account and held that such classification is illegal and arbitrary, also placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar [ AIR 1955 SC 191], Probhudas Morarjee Rajkotia v. Union of India [ AIR 1966 SC 1044], Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia v. Union of India [ (1969) 2 SCC 166 : AIR 1970 SC 1453],

¶84

Western M.P. Electric Power & Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.

¶85

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 11 :

¶86

[AIR 1970 SC 21], Mohd. Shujat Ali v. Union of India [(1975) 3 SCC 76], D.S. Nakara v. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305], R.K. Garg and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. [(1981) 4 SCC 675], Sri Srinivasa Theatre and others v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others [ (1992) 2 SCC 643], Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [ (1993) 3 SCC 677], L.I.C. of India and Another v. Consumer Education & Research Centre and Others , K. Thimmappa v. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, SBI [(2001) 2 SCC 259], Amita v. Union of India [(2005) 13 SCC 721], Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Association v. Union of India [ AIR 2006 SC 2945] and Union of India (UOI) and Ors. v. N.S. Rathnam and Sons [(2015) 10 SCC 681.

¶87

After having analysed the legal position from the judgments referred to above, and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and other laws, it was held as follows in the judgment in W A 2513 of 2015:

¶88

“25. The object sought to be achieved in providing financial concession to the SC/ST students is for educational purposes. Analysing the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that merely because, some of the students belonging to SC/ST, secure admission to the courses, without undergoing the examination, it cannot be said that there is a fundamental distinction, with regard to the community at large. All the students belonging to SC/ST community, homogeneously suffer from social disability and thus the

¶89

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 12 :

¶90

financial assistance. It is not the case of the Government that the students, who secure admission in the institutions run by the respondent, do not suffer from social disability.

¶91

Classification, which the Government have adopted, is not in accordance with the directive principles of State Policy and it is manifestly unreasonable. Such a classification is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶92

Distinction placed by the Government is nothing, but an artificial and impermissible classification, among the students belonging to SC/ST community. The classification is not founded on intelligible differentia.

¶93

Classification made by the Government is not germane to the object sought to be achieved, i.e., providing financial assistance to the SC/ST students, and that, the same has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

¶94

It should be the committed liability of the State, to extend refund of fee to the SC/ST students, notwithstanding the method of selection, and such students, who could not secure admission through the entrance examination, conducted by the State, cannot be denied of their right to pursue education, in the Self Financing Institutions. Their educational dreams cannot be shattered and nipped at the bud. Government should consider that they would be constrained to pay tuition fees, in some cases, even more than the fee fixed by the Government.

¶95

On an analysis of the said imperative conditions, contained under Articles 338 of the Constitution of India, it is clear that the Government is not at liberty to classify the benefits available to the

¶96

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 13 :

¶97

members of the Scheduled Caste community, for the mere reason that they have secured admission directly in the institutions managed by the Self Financing Institutions.

¶98

What is intended under the provisions of the Constitution is, to provide necessary help and assistance to the members of the Scheduled Caste community, as a class by itself, and therefore, the Central and State Governments are bound to protect the welfare and development of the members of the Scheduled Caste community, without making any discrimination between them especially, in the matter of providing fee concession to the students, pursuing education in various educational institutions, irrespective of the fact as to whether, it is a Government controlled institution.

¶99

On the other hand, it is explicit and unequivocal that, it is always the intention of the framers of the Constitution, that the Governments, without fail, shall ensure their welfare, progress, and development to satisfy the Constitutional requirements.

¶100

Thus, bearing in mind the aspects mandated under the Constitution of India, the learned Single Judge has interpreted the orders of the State Government and directed reimbursement of fees to the students, who have pursued their studies in the writ petitioner institution.

¶101

We are also of the firm opinion that the distinction made by the State Government, between the students securing admission through the entrance examination, in the institutions controlled and regulated by the State Government, and the students belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, who have secured admission directly, in any institution conducted by any management, is a clear

¶102

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 14 :

¶103

discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which clearly manifests, not to deny to any person, equality before law or equal protection of the laws, within the territory of India.

¶104

Added to above, are the duties and obligations of the State, as per the Directive Principles of State Policy, contained under Part IV of the Constitution of India. Article 39 of the Constitution mandates a duty on the State, to secure a social order, for the promotion of welfare of the people, by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which, social, economic, and political, shall inform all institutions of the national life and further that, the State shall eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only among individuals, but also among groups of people engaged in different vocations. So also, Article 46 of the Constitution of India, which casts a duty on the State for promotion, with special care of the educational and economic interests of weaker sections of the people, and in particular, the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. 36. On the reference to the interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(C) Nos.8073 to 8080 of 2013, in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association CSI Cinod Secretariat, Madras (AIR 1992 SC 1439), the Hon'ble Apex Court explained thus:

¶105

“.......While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it

¶106

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021

¶107

: 15 :

¶108

stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority continues to exist in law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending...........”

¶109

On an analysis of the situations available in the instant

¶110

appeals, it is clear that they are similar to the judgment rendered by this Court in W.A. No. 2513 of 2015 dated 25.06.2021 as above and therefore much deliberations in regard to the facts and circumstances are not required. In that view of the matter, we are of the clear and considered opinion that the Government is not entitled to succeed in

¶111

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 16 :

¶112

the appeals. We also do not find any jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities in the common judgment of the learned single Judge, liable to be interfered with exercising the power conferred on this Court under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Apart from the above, we are informed that the State Government has issued orders providing e-grant benefits to similarly situated students, who have secured admission under the management quota from the succeeding year.

¶113

Needless to say, writ appeals fail and accordingly they are dismissed.

¶114

sd/- S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

¶115

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶116

¶117

W.A.No. 773 & 803 of 2021 : 17 :

¶118

APPENDIX OF WA 773/2021

¶119

APPELLANTS' ANNEXURES:

¶120

Annexure A1 COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT WITH EXHIBITS FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CONNECTED W.P(C)NO.12990/2020 WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN W.P(C)NO.1176/2021 FOR DECIDING BOTH THE CASES JOINTLY.

¶121

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL

¶122

/True Copy/

¶123

¶124

P. S to Judge.

State of Kerala v. Rahul S Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

State of Kerala v. Rahul S Krishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Varghese Vs the Union of India

V. Varghese Vs the Union of India

Musaliar College of Engineering Vs State of Kerala

Aswin Manmathan, Vs A.P.J Abdul Kalam Technological University

Leashar Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Central Board of Secondary Education Vs Mohammed Saiban M. (Minor)