Disposed

Sijo Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2022WP(C)/32644/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought admission under EWS category for LLB integration course. His exclusion was due to uploading an income certificate for FY 2022-23 instead of 2021-22. Court held respondent at fault and directed them to review his status.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 2nd respondent to consider petitioner's complaint and include his name in EWS list if the corrected income certificate is accepted.

Sijo Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 22ND ASWINA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 32644 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SIJO JOSEPH AGED 18 YEARS S/O. LATE JOY JOSEPH, VAZHAYIL BETHAL MANDIRAM, VENGANOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 523 BY ADV C.K.SHERIN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶10

2 COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION (CEE), 5TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING, SS KOVIL ROAD, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI. B. PREMOD - SPL. GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P(C) No. 32644 of 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2022

¶19

The petitioner belongs to the Economically Weaker Section (‘EWS’ for short) and had applied for admission for the integrated five year LLB course. The petitioner’s grievance is regarding his non - inclusion in the category wise list published on 11.10.2022. On finding that his name is not included in the EWS category, the petitioner enquired and was thereupon informed that, instead of uploading income certificate for the year 2021-2022, he had, uploaded income certificate for the year 2022-2023. Immediately thereupon, petitioner preferred Ext.P4 complaint on 11.10.2022 itself, followed by Ext.P6 dated 12.10.2022.

¶20

2.Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no mistake on the petitioner’s part, since the petitioner had applied for income certificate for the year 2021-2022. The 3^rd respondent had mistakenly entered the year as 2022-2023 instead of 2021-2022. The petitioner was completely ignorant about the mistake while uploading the income certificate and came to know about this crucial defect only when the category wise list was published on 11.10.2022. It is submitted that the petitioner is being be put to prejudice for no fault of his and hence the Commissioner of

¶21

W.P(C) No. 32644 of 2022

¶22

¶23

Entrance Examinations may be directed to include the petitioner’s name in the category wise list for EWS, and permit the petitioner to produce income certificate for the year 2021-2022, which he has now obtained, as evidenced by Ext.P9.

¶24

3.Learned Government Pleader submits that no leniency can be shown in the petitioner’s case. It is pointed out that 08.08.2022 was the last date for submitting online applications and after verification of the applications, the candidates where application were having defects were alerted by publishing a memo in the candidate profile. As per instructions received, the petitioner was also alerted regarding the defect in his income certificate through memo dated 16.09.2022. Those candidates, whose applications were defective, was granted opportunity to cure the defect from 24.09.2022 to 03.10.2022. The petitioner having failed to avail such opportunity, any interference at this stage will upset the process of admission, is the contention.

¶25

4.Having heard the learned counsel on either side and having gone through the documents, I find merit in the petitioner’s contention that the 3^rd respondent’s mistake in issuing income certificate for the year 2022-2023 instead of 2021-2022 had resulted in the petitioner’s application being defective. The 3^rd respondent has now corrected the mistake by issuing Ext.P9

¶26

W.P(C) No. 32644 of 2022

¶27

¶28

certificate for the year 2021-2022.

¶29

5.In such circumstances, despite the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to cure the defect, I am of the opinion that the petitioner's grievance ought to addressed, more so since the petitioner had submitted the complaint immediately on application of the category wise list.

¶30

The writ petition is hence disposed, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner’s complaint and take a decision thereon before finalizing the list. If the decision is in the petitioner's favour, he shall be permitted to upload or produce the income certificate for the year 2021-2022, so that his name can be be included in the category wise list.

¶31

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶32

¶33

W.P(C) No. 32644 of 2022

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32644/2022

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT PAGE ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE FINAL LIST DATED 10.10.2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CATEGORY WISE LIST PUBLISHED ON 11.10.2022 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED 30.7.2022 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL DATED 12.10.2022 ISSUED AT 5.21 P.M.TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS WITH REGARD TO THE EWS CATEGORY Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED 11.10.2022

Sijo Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sijo Joseph v. State of Kerala

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

T.A. Xavier Vs Nishant Kavungaparambil

The Executive Engineer,Lsgd Division ,Kakkanad Ernakulam Vs C v Radhakrishnan, S/O Viswanatha Pai Thuruthelveli,Maruthorvattom P O ,Cherthala

Hassan N.S Vs Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady

Thomson Thomas Vs District Collector

Annamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Pranav K.P. Vs K.V. Pushpa (Pen 288558)