Kerala High Court
Salvia Hussain (Minor) vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2021
Author: Shaji P. Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
W. A. No. 1256 of 2021 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
WA NO. 1256 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12412/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
1 SALVIA HUSSAIN (MINOR)
AGED 17 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER K.HUSSAIN, K.K.HOUSE,
KOOTTIKADA P.O., THATTAMALA, KOLLAM-691020.
(STUDYING IN STANDARD XII, NATIONAL PUBLIC
SCHOOL, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM).
2 SIBI WILSON (MINOR),
AGED 17 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER WILSON V. SAMUEL,
REBOBOTH BHAVAN, KEDIKA, KAITHAPARAMP P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA-691526. (STUDYING IN STANDARD XII,
PADMASREE CENTRAL SCHOOL, ENATH, PATHANAMTHITTA).
3 KERALA C.B.S.E. SCHOOL MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
P.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, PENTA TOWER, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682017.
BY ADVS.
P.B.KRISHNAN
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
SABU GEORGE
MANU VYASAN PETER
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE
EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI
W. A. No. 1256 of 2021 -2-
NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4 PRIVATE SCHOOL GRADUATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
KERALA (PGTA), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
SECRETARY, SUDHEER CHANDRAN, S.V.H.S., PULLAD
P.O., THIRUVALLA, RESIDING AT SREE VIHAR,
PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT-686101.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. ASOK M CHERIAN, ADDL. AG FOR R1 TO R3,
SRI. SIJI ANTONY FOR R4
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W. A. No. 1256 of 2021 -3-
JUDGMENT
Shaji P. Chaly, J.
Petitioners are the appellants before this Court, challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) No. 12412 of 2021 dated 17.09.2021 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition along with other connected matters, declining to grant any of the reliefs sought for by the petitioners.
2. The primary relief sought for by the petitioners was a direction to the State of Kerala to provide admission to the professional courses for the academic year 2020-21 within the State, on the basis of the marks secured by candidates in the entrance examination conducted by the Director of Higher Secondary Education, the 3rd respondent, and for other related and consequential reliefs .
3. The appellants are students who have completed their 12 th standard during the current academic year i.e. 2020-2021 from a school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education W. A. No. 1256 of 2021 -4- (CBSE). The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations invited applications for admission to various professional courses, including Engineering courses, through the entrance examination, for the ensuing academic year, in terms of a notification issued on 31.05.2021.
4. In terms of Ext. P3 prospectus, the rank list for admission is to be prepared by giving equal weightage to the score of the candidates in the entrance examination, as also the marks in the qualifying examination for the subjects Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, after standardizing the marks of the candidates in the qualifying examination conducted by different Boards, applying the formula provided in the prospectus for the said purpose.
5. It is the contention of the appellants that due to Covid - 19 pandemic, the qualifying examination was not conducted by the CBSE during the current academic year, however, the State Board conducted the qualifying examination, according to the appellants, in a liberalized manner. Therefore, since the qualifying examination was not conducted by the CBSE, the students who seek admission to Engineering courses on the basis of the notional marks awarded to W. A. No. 1256 of 2021 -5- them, would be prejudiced in their ranking, if they are treated at par with the candidates who apply for admission on the strength of the marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination conducted by the State Board in a liberalized manner.
6. The appellants have also provided certain statistics such as, the number of students secured A+ in the State Board examination has escalated thrice when compared to the number of students who obtain A+ last year.
7. It is also submitted that the number of students who obtained full marks for Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, has also increased several times compared to the last year.
8. Apparently, the appellants have filed a representation before the State Government explaining the circumstances, however, the State Government has not taken any action on the same, which persuaded the appellants to approach the Writ Court.
9. In fact, almost similar writ appeals were considered by this Court and they were dismissed, however, learned counsel for the appellants have a case that those cases were materially different from the case at hand, since those cases were filed after the students W. A. No. 1256 of 2021 -6- participated in the entrance examinations, while the appellants herein have challenged the prospectus prescribing standardisation prior to their participation in the entrance examination.
10. Anyhow, so far as the students who have participated in the examination without any objection, we have relied upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to the incompetence of the students challenging the entrance examination procedure as per the prospectus, and held that they are not entitled to challenge the prospectus after participation in the examination. We have also held that the contention with respect to the liberalized manner of examination conducted by the State Board enabling the students participated in the State Board examination to secure more A+ and more full marks, cannot be gone into by a writ court, especially when there are no sufficient and adequate materials before the Court to substantiate the contention of the students.
11. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the findings rendered by this Court in W. A. No. 1224 of 2021 dated 27.09.2021, applies to the appellants herein also, even though they have challenged the examination procedure prior to the conduct of the examination. W. A. No. 1256 of 2021 -7-
12. In a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ court is not expected to go in depth and examine the intricacies of the question papers set by the State Examination Board, and as to whether it was in a liberalized form, since the writ Court do not have the expertise to adjudicate in a writ proceeding such aspects in a summary manner, and enter into any conclusive findings, especially due to the fact that the question papers are set by the experts in the field. The Constitutional Courts are not expected normally and ordinarily to interfere in such academic matters and overturn the formulations made by the state or its authorities, unless distinctive and glaring illegalities are established that can topple the basic framework of the constitutional mandates and thus rendering the proceedings arbitrary and illegal. Apparently no such case was made out by the petitioners before the writ court.
13. It was taking into account the said aspects and others in regard to the contentions raised with respect to the marks awarded by the State Board alone, the learned Single Judge has arrived at the finding that the appellants are not entitled to get any reliefs as are sought for in the writ petition.
W. A. No. 1256 of 2021 -8-
On analyzing the facts and circumstances and taking into account the contentions raised by the appellant, we are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and in our view, the appellants have failed to make out any case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities in the Judgment liable to be interfered in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
Needless to say, writ appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Eb ///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE