Disposed

Thomas Raju v. Government of India

Kerala HC6 Jan 2021WP(C)/26236/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought admission to a higher priority IIT via vacant seats in a different category after being allotted IIITDM Jabalpur. Respondents argued against shifting due to category restrictions and IIT autonomy. The court held the question of filling vacant seats lies within the IIT's authority and directed IIT Guwahati to consider the shifting request. No admission was granted directly by the

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the IIT Guwahati to consider the petitioner's claim for shifting and pass orders within six weeks.

Thomas Raju Vs Government of India — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

THOMAS RAJU AGED 18 YEARS S/O.RAJU THOMAS, ELAMBASSERY HOUSE, PADINJAREKKARA P.O, VALLAKOM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SMT.K.S.ARCHANA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCES, ROOM NO. 312 C WING SHASTRI BHAWAN, RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110001.

¶13

2 UCEED - CEED 2021, IIT BOMBAY, POWAI, MUMBAI - 400076, MAHARASHTRA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶14

ADV. SRI.N.S.DAYA SINDHU SHREE HARI

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI.ARJUN MITHRA FOR R2

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 6^th day of January 2021

¶22

The petitioner had appeared in the Undergraduate Common Entrance Examination for Design (UCEED) for admission to the course in Bachelor of Design (B.Des.). He had opted for IIT Bombay, IIT Guwahati, IIT Hyderabad and IIITDM Jabalpur respectively. He secured 160.22 marks. It is stated that there are altogether 144 seats in the four IITs. Petitioner was allotted to IIITDM Jabalpur as against his 4th option. He took admission at IIITDM Jabalpur on 23.07.2020, after remitting the prescribed fee. Later he came to know that

¶23

two seats had become vacant in IIT at Guwahati. He

¶24

therefore submitted Ext.P7 representation before the 2nd respondent requesting for admission either at IIT Bombay or at IIT Guwahati by shifting him from IIITDM Jabalpur. But he did not receive any positive reply. This Writ Petition was filed at that stage pointing out the inaction of respondents to fill up the two seats in the IIT, which is an institution of his higher option. It is stated that the last candidate in the open category who was given admission

¶25

¶26

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶27

at Guwahati is rank no.80 whereas petitioner is rank no.3.

¶28

As against the 56 seats available at Guwahati only 54 students have joined. Petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the respondents to migrate him to IIT Guwahati or IIT Bombay or IIT Hyderabad against the available vacant seats.

¶29

The learned Central Government Counsel filed a statement on behalf of 2^nd respondent on 02.12.2020. It is stated that admission to Undergraduate courses in B.Des. in the four IITs at Bombay, Guwahati, Hyderabad and Jabalpur are done through UCEED, a common seat allocation process made on the basis of rank and the order of choice of institute, on the basis of merit. It is stated that no candidate with a rank lower to that of petitioner is given admission at IIT Guwahati. It is also stated that at the end of 5^th and final round of counseling all the seats in IIT Guwahati were allotted. However two of such seats became vacant subsequently since two candidates did not remit the fee. It is also stated that one of such seats is an open PwD seat and the other one is OBC -NCL and petitioner who is in the open category is not eligible for admission against either of those seats. It is also stated that the allotment of seats were closed on 09.11.2020 after the five runs of seat allotment. Petitioner was allotted the seat at IIITDM, Jabalpur in the 2^nd round of counseling. It is also stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner on 17.11.2020 was rejected on the very same

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶32

day informing that counseling was closed and for further information he has to contact the respective institutes. It is stated that as against Annx.R2(b) grievance lodged by the petitioner in the Prime Minister's Office Public Grievance Portal which was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent, Ext.R2(d) reply was given to him on 26.11.2020 stating that shifting is not permissible. It is their further case that shifting from one IIT to another is not permissible as there is no provision of lateral shifting of candidates and as there are no vacant seats in the category to which he belongs. It is stated that admission is made only in the order of merit in the category. It is also stated that there is no provision for any spot round of admission for filling up any left-over vacancies after completing the 5 rounds of counseling. It is stated that each of the participating IITs are autonomous bodies and there is no provision for spot admission. It is further stated that academic session of IIT Guwahati commenced on 13.11.2020.

¶33

The petitioner filed a reply affidavit producing Ext.P8 Information Brochure of UCEED 2020 and stating that even if the seats which became vacant were in the category of OBC-NCL or PwD, the unfilled seats in those categories would get reverted to open category as per clause 6 and 21 respectively of the Brochure. It is further stated that as per clause 24 of Ext.P8 petitioner was eligible to get admission in IIT Guwahati in view of the floating option available and the first preferred station

¶34

¶35

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶36

of the petitioner was IIT Bombay followed by IIT Guwahati. Therefore, in the absence of any claim raised by rank nos.81 and 82 petitioner is entitled to be granted admission against one of the vacant seats. It is pointed out that there is no specific ban against shifting of a candidate who is already allotted and granted admission and there will not be any violation of merit as the petitioner is undergoing/attending classes from November 2020 onwards, based on his allotment and admission in the 2^nd round of counseling.

¶37

The 2^nd respondent has filed another statement dated 21.12.2020 stating that there were 153 candidates from OBC-NCL at the end of the second supplementary round (fifth round) of seat allocation and out of these 153 candidates, 134 candidates had opted for IIT Guwahati. It is stated that 4 Open PwD candidates did not get any seats at the end of the 5^th round of seat allocation. It is stated that two seats became vacant since one Open PwD candidate and one OBC candidate did not pay the prescribed fee. It is also stated that those 2 seats should be first offered to the 153 OBC-NCL candidates and 4 Open PwD candidates respectively who did not get a seat, in the event of another round of counseling being held and not to the petitioner. It is their further contention that admission to the petitioner against the vacant seat would violate merit as there are two more candidates between the petitioner and the last candidate who got a seat in IIT Guwahati. It is stated that

¶38

¶39

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶40

admissions are made strictly in accordance with the Information Brochure Ext.P8.

¶41

Heard Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, the learned counsel

¶42

for the petitioner, Sri.Arjun Mitra, the learned Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent along with Sri.Daya Sindhu Sreehari, the learned CGC. Relying on the judgments in Pallavi Sharma vs. College of Vocational Studies and Anr .: (2015) 221 DLT 738 , Dev Verma vs. Union of India judgment in WP No.8241/2016 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, University Grants Commission and another vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) : 2013 (10) SCC 519 , Rajiv

¶43

Mittal vs. Maharshi Dayan and University and others : (1998) 2 SCC 402 Sri .Arjun Mitra argued that admissions are made strictly in tune with the provisions in the Information Brochure and that any direction, if issued by this court at this stage, in favour of the petitioner would be contrary to it, which is not permissible.

¶44

Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who has already been granted admission in an IIT is seeking only a migration/transfer/shifting to another IIT where there is a vacant seat in which he can be accommodated. On the other hand the respondents pointed out that there is no provision for filling up the seats by transferring a candidate from one IIT to another IIT and that each of the IITs are autonomous bodies.

¶45

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed

¶46

¶47

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶48

out that the provisions in Ext.P8 brochure provides for reversion of seats earmarked for PwD as well as OBC categories to the candidates in open category, I am of the view that the question of reversion comes at a time when there is no candidate available in the respective categories of PwD, OBCNCL. In the present case there were 134 out of 153 OBC-NCL candidates who opted for IIT Guwahati. Similarly there were 4 Open PwD candidates who had opted for admission to IIT Guwahati who were not allotted any seat even after the five rounds of counseling. Therefore, the stage of reversion has not reached as such. Reversion can only be on non-availability of candidates in the respective categories.

¶49

Though there is no specific ban against shifting there is no specific provision also permitting shifting, in the Information Brochure. At the same time the respondents have in both their statements stated that each of the IITs are autonomous bodies.

¶50

Therefore the question whether a seat should be kept unfilled or whether a candidate can be accommodated by shifting from another IIT would be a matter to be decided by the IIT concerned.

¶51

The Petitioner has along with I.A.No.2 of 2021 produced Ext.P9 representation addressed to the IIT Guwahati requesting for such shifting. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the IIT, Guwahati to consider the claim of

¶52

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶53

the petitioner in Ext.P9 representation and to pass orders on it, taking note of the fact that he has been attending the classes at IIITDM, Jabalpur based on his admission in the 2^nd round of counseling, as expeditiously as possible within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶54

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

rkc

JUDGE

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶60

¶61

APPENDIX

¶62

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶63

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.7125652 DATED 15.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATIONS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶64

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE SEAT ACCEPTANCE PAYMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT UCEED 2020-2021, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE SPLIT UP MARKS SECURED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE UCEED 2020-2021. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF SEAT ALLOCATION FOR THE YEAR 2020-21 FOR B.DES. COURSE, IN THE FOUR INSTITUTES, SUCH AS IIT BOMBAY, IIT GUWAHATI, IIT HYDERABAD AND IIITDM JABALPUR. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF 54 STUDENTS ALLOTTED TO IIT GUWAHATI. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DOWNLOADED BY THE PETITIONER ON 17.11.2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION BROCHURE OF UCEED 2020 PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.1.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT

¶65

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶66

ANNX R2A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL PRINTOUT WHEREIN PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION AND REPLY DT.17.11.20 ARE INCLUDED ANNX.R2B TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE LODGED BY THE

¶67

WP(C).No.26236 OF 2020(D)

¶68

¶69

	PETITIONER ON 16.11.2020
ANNX.R2C	TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER FROM THE PM'S PG PORTAL ON 26.11.2020
ANNX.R2D	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.26.11.2020
ANNX.R2E	TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT SUMMARY FOR THE SECOND SUPPLEMENTARY ROUND (I.E. THE 5TH AND FINAL ROUND)

Thomas Raju v. Government of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas Raju v. Government of India

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

Kala S. Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sulaiman.a Vs Raghuram

Pavan Rose Johnson, Vs the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations

T.K.Zachariah Vs the State of Kerala

Vijayakumaran Nair Vs the Chairman