Disposed

Fadhil Rahman, v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

Kerala HC1 Nov 2021WP(C)/19425/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought admission to CUSAT and requested consideration of a representation regarding his MSM reservation eligibility. The direct court directed respondents to issue notice, hear the petitioner, and consider the representation within two weeks, without deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to issue notice to petitioner and consider Ext.P7 representation after hearing within two weeks to decide on admission category.

Fadhil Rahman, Vs Cochin University of Science and… — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 19425 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FADHIL RAHMAN, AGED 19 YEARS S/O. E.K. ABDUL REHIMAN, E.K. HOUSE, EDAKKAPARAMBA, KANNAMANGALAM POST, MALAPPURAM - 676 304.

¶8

BY ADVS. R. LEELA PREEJA V.P. V.P. PRASANTH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, (CUSAT), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY ROAD, KALAMASSERRY, KOCHI - 682 022. 2 THE DIRECTOR, IRAA CUSAT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY ROAD, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 022. BY ADV SRI. S.P. ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No.19425 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner belongs to Muslim OBC category. The petitioner had submitted an application for admission to the CUSAT CAT UG Examination and he participated in the admission process and secured Rank No.4278. According to the petitioner, in the rank list, he is included in the Muslim Reservation Category (hereinafter referred to as 'MSM'). At the time of registration the petitioner could not produce Non Creamy Layer Certificate and accordingly the petitioner was included in th e General category in the admission profile. The petitioner produced Non Creamy Layer Certificate through e-mail and thereafter, the petitioner was converted from General category to MSM category in the admission profile. However, in the first allotment list published on 10.09.2021, the petitioner was again included in the General category. According to the petitioner, he is eligible for admission under MSM reservation category. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation before the Director of IRAA

¶16

WP(C).No.19425 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

CUSAT - the 2^nd respondent, requesting to include the petitioner in MSM reservation category and admit him to the B.Tech/Integrated M.Sc. Course in the selected option. According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has not responded to Ext.P7.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for University.

¶20

The learned Standing Counsel for the University has filed a counter affidavit.

¶21

The limited prayer of the petitioner is for consideration of Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, if the petitioner is given an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner can apprise the concerned Authority that he is entitled to be considered and included in MSM reservation category.

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel for the University submits that, the representation has to be considered by the Registrar of the University and not by the Director. However, he fairly submits that the matter will be placed before the appropriate Authority for decision. He also submits that Ext.P7 will be considered in accordance with law untrammeled

¶23

WP(C).No.19425 OF 2021

¶24

¶25

by the stand already taken by the said respondent in the counter affidavit.

¶26

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the competent among the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner, within the shortest time and to consider Ext.P7 after hearing the petitioner, either through virtual or physical hearing. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, at any rate, before the completion of the admission process. The order shall be communicated to the petitioner. I make it clear that, I have

¶27

not expressed any opinion on the merits of the representation.

¶28

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶31

SPR

¶32

WP(C).No.19425 OF 2021

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶36

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ADMIT CARD FOR ADMISSION TO THE B.TECH COURSE FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021 IN WHICH THE DATE OF TEST IS MENTIONED AS 18.07.2021.
EXHIBIT P1 (a)	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROVISIONAL RANK LIST WHICH WAS ACTUALLY PUBLISHED ON 11.08.2021 FOR B TECH COURSERS/5 YEAR MSC IN PHOTONICS/ 5 YEAR MSC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE IN WHICH THE PETITIONER'S NAME IS INCLUDE AS RANK NO.4278.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY SCREEN SHOT OF THE CANDIDATE PROFILE DATED NIL IN WHICH THE PETITIONER'S CATEGORY IS MENTIONED AS GENERAL.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE NON CREAMY LAWYER CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KANNAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 18.08.2021.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 18.08.2021 PRODUCING THE NON CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE CANDIDATE'S PROFILE TOOK ON 19.08.2021 FROM CUSAT WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST ALLOTMENT STATUS PUBLISHED ON 10.09.2021 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.09.2021.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶38

EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE E- MAIL COMMUNICATIONS.

Fadhil Rahman, v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fadhil Rahman, v. Cochin University of Science and Technology

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

K.Ramachandran Vs Director General

Fathima Vs Ajithkumar

Kareem N.M. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala Kalamandalam Deemed to Be University of Art and Culture Vs Gopikrishnan R.

Goldview Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Regional Privident Fund Commissioner

R.Madhu, Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation