Kerala High Court
Cibumol B. Babu vs The National Institute Of Technology on 15 June, 2011
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23570 of 2010(U)
1. CIBUMOL B. BABU, D/O.V.K.BALAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
... Respondent
2. ST.JOHN'S COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
For Respondent :SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :15/06/2011
O R D E R
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No.23570 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated the 15th day of June, 2011
JUDGMENT
Whether the petitioner who was originally sponsored by the second respondent as an employee, for M.Tech admission in the first respondent institution, in respect of the specified quota (sponsored quota), is entitled to continue the studies, despite, non production of the 'relieving certificate' and discontinuation of the employment, contrary to the terms of allotment, is the issue in the writ petition.
2. The petitioner after completing the B-Tech was in the service of the second respondent. When applications were invited for admission to M-Tech by the first respondent, the petitioner being an aspirant, was also sponsored by the second respondent, on the basis of which she secured admission there. But, since the first respondent was about to refuse entry to the petitioner for not producing the relieving certificate, she filed the present writ petition, wherein on 29.07.2010, an interim order was passed as follows:-
"Notice by special messenger. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be allowed to attend classes subject to the condition that the petitioner shall execute an undertaking to produce relieving order as per decision in this writ petition."
On completion of service of notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed detailed counter affidavits pointing out that the W.P(C) NO.23570 of 2010(U) -:2:- petitioner is not at all entitled to continue with the studies and that petitioner is no more in service of the second respondent as well.
3. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent, it is stated that the admission to M.Tech is based on satisfaction of the procedure/norms as prescribed under Ext.P3. It involves the minimum qualifying marks and also the marks secured. The admission secured under 'sponsored quota' is subject to the other conditions that the candidate is duly sponsored and full salary of the candidate is fulfilled by the institution, issuing necessary relieving certificate. Since the petitioner did not produce the relieving certificate, Ext.R1(e) letter was sent by the first respondent to the second respondent, pointing out the facts and figures as to the admission given by the said respondent for the 'three' candidates, based on the sponsorship certificates issued by the second respondent. On receipt of the same, it was duly replied by the second respondent pointing out as per Ext.R1(f), that the petitioner was never entitled to be sponsored by the institution and that Ext.R1(a) sponsorship letter was given subject to the specific assurance given by the petitioner that she will not contest for the post, if the other two seniors secured admission, as discernible from Ext.R2(b) dated 18.5.2010 executed by the petitioner. It is on W.P(C) NO.23570 of 2010(U) -:3:- the basis of the said understanding that the sponsorship certificate was given. But, since the other two better eligible candidates secured admission in the first respondent institution, it was not possible for the second respondent to have sponsored any more candidate in view of the declared policy of the Institution that only 'two' candidates (depending upon the seniority) would be sponsored, meeting their full salary during the entire period of the course.
4. It is born out Ext.R1(f) reply given and the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from 20.7.2010, pursuant to which, show-cause notices were issued, which were not responded by the petitioner, and that the service of the petitioner was terminated by the second respondent in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. In the reply affidavit, there is no reference to these facts and particulars which, in fact, stand uncontroverted.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once a sponsorship is made, it is no more open to the employer to have withdrawn the same. There is also a contention that the order of termination from the service has not been served on the petitioner. However, these aspects do not deserve much consideration by this W.P(C) NO.23570 of 2010(U) -:4:- Court, for the obvious reason that the specific yard sticks as prescribed for securing admission under the "sponsored quota" as per Ext.P3 have not been successfully fulfilled. That apart, as per the interim order passed by this Court on 29.7.2010, the petitioner was permitted to attend the class, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall execute an undertaking to produce the 'relieving order'. Though the undertaking has been given, the 'relieving order' is still to be produced, which in fact, has now turned to be a matter of impossibility; the second respondent/employer, having disowned the petitioner.
6. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioner is not eligible to continue with the studies, irrespective of the fact whether the vacancy to be resulted, could be filled by somebody else up or not. It may be a mere question of sympathy on the petitioner. But the Apex Court has held on many an occasion that misplaced sympathy shall not be shown in total breach of rules, by admitting the students who are actually not eligible to get admission and to permit them to attend the classes, then to write the examinations on a provisional basis, to declare the results and finally to issue the certificate, for the reason that no purpose will be served if a contrary W.P(C) NO.23570 of 2010(U) -:5:- decision is taken. Such course has been deprecated in M.G.University v. Gis Jose (2008 (4) KLT 216) and the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court, setting aside the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the Single Judge has been reversed.
In the above circumstances no interference is warranted. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE krj