Kerala High Court
Maya M. Karl vs State Of Kerala on 30 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KER 344
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 8TH BHADRA, 1941
WP(C).No.21489 OF 2019(I)
PETITIONER/S:
MAYA M. KARL,
AGED 18 YEARS,
D/O. CHARLES KARL, NO OCCUPATION,
RESIDING AT KARL MANSION, SHORNUR ROAD,
THIRUVAMBADY, THRISSUR-680 022,
HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT ARRANGASSERY HOUSE,
PARAPPUR P.O, THRISSUR-680 552.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SURENDRAN
KUM.S.MAYUKHA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM-695 001.
3 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
R1-3 BY SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
19-08-2019, THE COURT ON 30-08-2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Clause 11.8.2 in Ext.P1 Prospectus for admission for Professional Degree Courses, 2019 in the State of Kerala, and G.O.(MS) No.122/98/H.Edn. dated 07.10.1998, since the same is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
2. Petitioner is a candidate seeking admission to MBBS course in any of the Government Medical Colleges in Kerala. She has qualified in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG 2019) conducted by the National Testing Agency. As per Ext.P3, petitioner was placed in NEET Rank No.10703 and Kerala Medical Rank 1356. But, later, the Kerala Medical Rank Nos.620, 1051, 1127, 1230, 1250 and 1315 are missing, and instead of raising her rank by 6 units, she was thrown below by one unit. The first allotment was conducted on 09.07.2019 and the petitioner could not W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 3 get any allotment. Before conducting the second allotment, the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations published Ext.P8 notice showing the vacancies available.
3. The 2nd respondent, in all, made 1280 allotments to Government Medical Colleges as against the total 1330 seats available. Therefore, according to the petitioner, 50 seats remain un-allotted, and as per the rank of the petitioner, she will get allotment, if allotment is made to the 50 seats also. That apart, it is submitted that, Clause 11.8.2 in Ext.P1 and the Government Order specified above dated 07.10.1998 envisages treatment of candidates availing benefits of communal reservation for getting a college of his/her choice, as a State Merit candidate, is unconstitutional being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the allotments given following the aforesaid provision of Ext.P1 Prospectus and the Government Order has resulted in just 42% seats available to General Category candidates, and the remaining is set apart to reserved candidates. This, according to the petitioner, is against the judgment of the apex court in 'Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others' [AIR 1993 SC 477]. Therefore, Ext.P9 W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 4 allotment list is challenged by the petitioner, as it is illegal and unconstitutional, and also seeks writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to conduct allotment in respect of 50 seats left outstanding.
These are the basic facts projected by the petitioner.
4. The 2nd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, refuting the claims and demands and the allegations made by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, 15% (209 seats) of the total seats in the Government Medical Colleges (1400 seats) in the State are set apart for All India Quota. However, apart from the said 15% seats, there are also other seats which are not at the disposal of the 2 nd respondent. As discernible from Clause 4.1.11(b) of the Prospectus for Kerala Engineering, Architecture and Medicine, 2019 (KEAM-2019) they are: (1) Nominees of the Government of India (24 seats); (2) Nominees from Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands (1 seat); (3) Nominees from Lakshadweep (1 seat); and (4) Nominee from Jammu & Kashmir (1 seat).
5. Likewise, as per Note 2 to Clause 4.1.5, 35% of the seats (35 seats) in Government Medical College, Kollam are to be filled up by Wards of Insured Persons under Employees State Insurance Corporation. Thus, W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 5 contrary to the averments in paragraphs 3, 8 and 9 of the writ petition to the effect that there are 655 seats available for State Merit, there are only 633 such seats, i.e., the total number of seats which were available in Government Medical Colleges in the State was 1400. Thereafter, 155 seats were increased for providing reservation to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of the society, out of which, 130 seats were set apart for EWS State Quota and 25 seats were set apart for EWS All India Quota. As provided in Clause 4.1.11(b) of the KEAM Prospectus-2019, 27 seats are reserved for Nominee reservation.
6. As per Note 2 to Clause 4.1.5, 35 seats in Government Medical College, Kollam are to be filled up by Wards of Insured Persons under Employees State Insurance Corporation. Thus, out of the total 1400 seats (excluding the 155 seats additionally included to accommodate EWS State Quota and All India Quota), 296 seats are set apart for All India Quota, Nominee Reservation and Wards of Insured under the ESI Corporation. As per Note 1 to Clause 4.1.5 of the KEAM Prospectus-2019, the reservation pattern in Government Medical College, Palakkad (Institute of Integrated Medical Sciences, Palakkad) are as follows: Scheduled W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 6 Caste - 70%, Scheduled Tribe - 2%, General Merit - 13% and All India Quota - 15%. That means, 70 seats in the said College are set apart for Scheduled Caste Candidates and 2 seats for Scheduled Tribe candidates.
7. As per Clause 4.1.3 of the KEAM Prospectus- 2019, 5% of the seats available for allotment in the Government Medical Colleges are reserved for the candidates with disabilities. This year, only 18 candidates were found eligible to be allotted to the persons with disability (PwD) category. Then there are 34 seats allotted, out of the 35 seats reserved for Special Reservation Categories in accordance with Clause 4.1.4 read with Clause 5.2 of the KEAM Prospectus. The split up of 35 seats reserved for special reservation are: Ex-servicemen Quota (6 seats), Dependent of Defence Personnel Killed/Missing/Disabled in action (5 seats), Serving Defence Personnel Quota (2 seats), Jewish Community Quota (1 seat), Degree/Diploma holders in Ayurveda for MBBS course (7 seats), Degree/Diploma holders in Homoeopathy for MBBS course (4 seats), Nurse Quota (1 seat), Sports Quota (7 seats) and NCC Quota (2 seats). Thus, from the total 1400 seats, the seats set apart for All India Quota, Nominee Reservation and Wards of Insured under the ESI W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 7 Corporation, Government Medical College, Palakkad set apart for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates, PwD category and Special Reservation have to be reduced (excluding the 155 seats for EWS candidates). At first, 45 seats from the All India Quota were surrendered by the Director General of Health Services. Thereafter, another seat at Palakkad College was also surrendered making the total surrendered All India Quota seats as 46. Thus, a total of 1051 seats were available for allotment by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations.
8. Therefore, it is submitted that, as per Clause 4.1.5 of the KEAM Prospectus-2019, leaving apart the seats for All India Quota, Government of India Nominees, Special Reservations, Persons with Disabilities and Management Quota, the remaining Government seats for each course in Government/Aided/KAU/KVASU/KUFOS Colleges will be distributed as per the mandatory reservation principle as is contained in G.O.(P) No.208/66/Edn. dated 02.05.1966, G.O.(MS) No.95/08/SCSTDD dated 06.10.2008, and G.O.(MS) No.10/2014/BCDD dated 23.05.2014 and as modified from time to time. The reservation principles are also enumerated in the counter affidavit. W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 8
9. That apart, it is submitted that, petitioner is found placed in the Kerala Medical Rank List as 1356, evident from Ext.P3, however, her rank is stated as 1357 in Ext.P4. As per Clause 1.1 of the KEAM Prospectus-2019, candidates have been requested to visit the websites of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations regularly for notifications and announcements. As per notification dated 27.06.2019, a revised rank list was published for medical courses, because two candidates were not included in the rank list due to technical defects, and it was in the said circumstances, there happened to be a change in the rank of the petitioner, evident from Ext.R2(a) notification dated 27.06.2019. The other contention raised by the petitioner with respect to 50 seats omitted to be allotted by the 2nd respondent, and that those seats were kept un-allotted for intrusion of the candidates having political support and who could otherwise get admission on merit are denied as false. According to the 2nd respondent, such a contention happened to be raised by the petitioner, since the petitioner had not taken into account the seats for Nominee Reservation, Special Reservation and Wards of W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 9 Insured under the ESI Corporation.
10. It is further submitted that, the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are only assumptions of the petitioner and the same have no merits. The list of candidates allotted to State Merit Seats in the Government Medical Colleges for MBBS 2019- 2020 is produced as Ext.R2(b), and the college-wise distribution of allotments under State Merit seats in Government Medical Colleges are also summarised, totalling 633. The Last Rank Details of allotment to MBBS and BDS as on 31.07.2019 is produced as Ext.R2(c), and the details of allotment to Government Medical Colleges during Mop-up Counselling on 07.08.2019 is produced as Ext.R2(d). The college-wise last ranks under State Merit category in Government Medical Colleges are also summarised.
11. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, the documents so produced will reveal that 633 candidates got admitted to various Government Medical Colleges in the State in the State Merit Quota. It is further submitted that, apart from the 130 seats for EWS Quota, the total number of seats available for allotment, after making provisions for All India Quota, Nominee Reservations, PwD Quota and Special W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 10 Reservations was 1051, and therefore, 633 State Merit admissions will take in the 60% seats provided for State Merit as per the aforementioned Clause 4.1.5 of the KEAM Prospectus-2019. Therefore, the challenge raised in the writ petition against Clause 11.8.2 of the KEAM Prospectus-2019, apart from other grounds cannot be sustained under law.
12. That apart, it is submitted that, the challenge is belated, since the KEAM Prospectus-2019 was published as early as on 01.02.2019, and the petitioner applied for admission in terms of the Prospectus. Petitioner also took part in the first and second part of the allotment as per the provisions of the Prospectus. That apart, petitioner also took part in the Mop-up counselling, and in that circumstances, petitioner cannot turn around and challenge a clause in the Prospectus. Therefore, according to the 2nd respondent, no grounds are made out by the petitioner to interfere with the selection process. Further, it is contended that, petitioner has challenged Ext.P9 rank list, however, none of the persons who are admitted in accordance with the rank list are made parties in the writ petition nor any steps are taken to carry out any paper publication.
W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 11
13. A reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. The contention raised by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit with respect to the seats allotted to various Quotas and EWS are also denied by the petitioner, and reiterated the stand that the reservation provided is more than 50% and, therefore, violative of the Constitutional principles in respect of reservation. That apart, the reservation made for the Government Medical Colleges, Palakkad at 70% is also attacked by the petitioner.
14. I have heard Sri. R. Surendran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Manu, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
15. The elaborate discussion of the facts made above would make it clear that, the admissions were made to the seats available in the State Merit List in accordance with the provisions of Ext.P1 Prospectus. It is also equally clear that petitioner has participated in the medical admission process without any reservation to the provisions contained under W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 12 Ext.P1 Prospectus, however, petitioner could not secure admission. It is thereafter, petitioner turns around and attacks Ext.P1 Prospectus. It is a well settled principle in law that having participated in a selection process in accordance with the stipulations and rules framed for the said purpose, nobody is entitled to attack the stipulations and rules having found that he/she is not entitled to get admission in accordance with the guiding principles. Along with the counter affidavit, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations have produced all the lists under which the admissions are made and the college-wise list is also produced, from which, it is clear that, altogether 633 seats were filled up in the State Merit out of 1051 seats after special reservation, and therefore, 60% seats are filled in the State Merit and the allegation made by the petitioner that only 42% seats are filled up in the State Merit is not sustainable under law.
16. It is also clear from the pleadings put forth and the documents produced that, seats for allotment of All India Quota, reserved categories and others are also provided in accordance with provisions contained under the Prospectus, and in accordance with law. The apprehension voiced by the petitioner that the original W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 13 rank of the petitioner was stepped down is a clear indication of the mal-practice committed in the list published, is also well answered by the 2nd respondent, which is also evident from Ext.R2(a) notification produced along with the counter affidavit. This aspect is not disputed by the petitioner in the reply affidavit. There is a clear indication as per Clause 1.1 of Ext.P1 Prospectus that the applicants have to frequently visit the site of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in order to verify the notifications issued. Therefore, the contention that the rank of the petitioner was stepped down as a result of malpractice, also cannot be sustained under law.
17. Petitioner has also contended that, the reservation made in the Palakkad Medical College for the Scheduled Caste candidates is against the reservation principle, also cannot be sustained under law, since as per Note 1 to Clause 4.1.5 of the Prospectus, it is clearly specified that the allotment of seats in the Palakkad Medical College for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe candidates will be in that manner. Anyhow, the issue with respect to the reservation made for the Government Medical College, Palakkad is not an issue raised by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 14 the writ petition, and such a contention is raised only in the reply affidavit, which can never be treated as part of the pleading. Therefore, with respect to the reservation followed in Government Medical College, Palakkad is not a subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. Moreover, it is clear that altogether the reservation principle is followed scrupulously and sufficient seats were set apart for the State Merit candidates.
18. Yet another predominant contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Clause 11.8.2 of KEAM Prospectus-2019 is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, which read thus:
"State-wide Principle of Allotment in Government/Aided/KAU/KVASU/KUFOS Colleges:
Allotment of seats in
Government/Aided/KAU/KVASU/KUFOS Colleges is
governed by a 'State-wide' principle of selection approved by the Government of Kerala in G.O. (MS)No.122/98/H.Edn. dated 07.10.1998. According to the G.O., 'Candidates of the reserved category who will otherwise in the open merit list will be allotted to the college of his choice provided he would have been eligible for allotment to that college if he was treated as candidate coming under reservation quota. While a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission to the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate'. As per the above principle, all seats available for allotment by CEE in W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 15 Government/Aided/KAU/KVASU/KUFOS Colleges for a particular course (Eg:- BAMS under Medical stream of Electronics & Communication under Engineering stream) available in all the Government and Aided colleges put together will be computed state-wide and the total seats so obtained for each course in these Colleges together, will be distributed statewide for the different categories by applying the mandatory reservation principle as mentioned in Clause 4.1.5. While following the above principle of allotment, the institution-
wise break up of seats that is earmarked under each category as per the mandatory reservation principle will be changed in certain colleges".
19. On an appreciation of the afore clause, it governs the allotment of seats to candidates in the reserved category who will otherwise come in the open merit list. However, the reservation portion of the said clause impugned by the petitioner makes it clear that, it does not govern the candidates who come solely within the reserved category. The provision only enables a candidate coming in State Merit also eligible for communal reservation, to avail a higher option seat set apart for his category in the event of a candidate qualifying to a lesser option seat in the State Merit category, which will in turn, prevent a less meritorious candidate availing the said seat by way of communal reservation, when a higher ranked candidate of that category was allotted his/her lesser option.
20. I find force in the contention advanced by the 2nd respondent with respect to the concept under Clause W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 16 11.8.2 i.e., for Government institutions, the State Merit seats are accounted state-wide rather than college-wise. The initial college-wise split up is prepared for each course, dividing the total seats proportionately as per the prospectus. The candidates are considered one by one in the rank order, and the options of the candidates are considered in the order of priority assigned by the candidates, i.e., for each of his/her option in course-college combination, if seat is available under an eligible category for that option, it will be allotted. However, if no vacant seat is available under any of the categories, the candidate is eligible for next option of the candidate, and it goes on until a vacant seat is found or until all the options are explored. The eligible categories are considered one by one starting with State Merit.
21. If a candidate is eligible for a category seat in a more preferred college where no more State Merit seats are left at the time of his turn, while there are State Merit seats available in one or more of the other colleges which are less preferred by the candidate, the candidate will be allotted the category seat deeming it as a State Merit seat, and in order to compensate the transformation of a category seat to a deemed-to-be W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 17 State Merit seat, a State Merit seat in one of the other colleges will be converted to the corresponding category seat. This concept of deemed-to-be State Merit seats is applicable only for Government colleges, and then also, it is limited to the mandatory reservation categories only. Due to the concept of the deemed-to-be State Merit seats, which is a consequence of the need to maintain State-wide accounting of State Merit allotments, the final institution level State Merit allotments may not match the initial seat distribution. But, at any cost, the State-wide distribution will be maintained, which is clear from the fact that 60% of the total mandatory seats at the disposal of the 2nd respondent were filled up with State Merit candidates in accordance with Clause 4.1.5 of the KEAM Prospectus-2019.
22. Taking into account the provisions of the Prospectus, it is clear, Clause 11.8.2 prevents a less meritorious candidate from displacing a more meritorious category candidate from being allotted to his higher option only because he became eligible in State Merit and by the process, it cannot be said that there is any excess reservation. That apart, the percentage of reservation and the number of seats W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 18 allotted for mandatory reservation remains the same. The issue so raised is no more res integra in view of the order of the apex court in 'Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others' [1996(3) SCC 253 : 1996 KHC 196]. Paragraph 1 of the said order clearly reveals the facts of the said case, which read thus:
"1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India raises the question whether a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste or any other reserved category even if is entitled to be selected for selection for admission in the open competition on the basis of his own merit yet can he be counted against the quota meant for reserved category or he will be treated as an open competition candidate? The aforesaid question arises because of the rules for selection to MBBS and BDS course for the year 1995-96 issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the Department of Medical Education and Drugs. The petitioner admittedly belongs to the reserved category. The petitioner's case in the nutshell is that respondent Nos. 5 to 36 belonging to the reserved category though could have been admitted on the basis of marks secured in open merit, yet they were admitted as against the reserved category and as a result the petitioner was excluded from getting admission into the MBBS course. There is no denial to the aforesaid assertion of fact. But the stand of the State Government as well as respondent Nos. 5 to 36 is that if the respondents are allowed to take admission in open merit then it will work out gross injustice and will be more harsh to them as they cannot get admitted to the colleges of their choice even though they have secured much higher marks than the other reserved category candidate and the candidates securing lower marks will get the premium of being admitted to the colleges of their choice. Before embarking upon any discussion on the point of controversy between the parties, it would be appropriate for us to notice some of the clauses of the Rules framed by the Government of Maharashtra for the purpose of selection of MBBS course and BDS course for the W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 19 year 1995-96. The Preamble of the Rule indicates that it purports to give effect to the prescribed scheme of this Court given in the form of a directive in Unnikrishnan's case and the Rules are intended to be applicable for the year 1995-
96. Under Clause 2.0.1. the Director of Medical Education and Research has been appointed as Competent Authority for Selection to 1st year M.B.B.S. Courses".
and at paragraph 17, the proposition of law laid down is clearly discernible, which reads as follows:
"17. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they will be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission to the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as a open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate.
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x".
W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 20
23. The proposition so laid down by the apex court was later followed in the judgments in 'Yoganand Vishwasrao Patil and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others' [2005 (12) SCC 311 : 2005 KHC 2163], 'Samta Aandolan Samiti and Another v. Union of India and Others' [2014 (14) SCC 745 : 2013 KHC 4961] and 'Tripurari Sharan and Another v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and Others' [2018 (2) SCC 656 : 2018 KHC 6012].
24. However, to counter the proposition so laid down by the apex court, the Constitution Bench judgment of the apex court in 'Union of India v. Ramesh Ram and Others' [2010 (7) SCC 234: 2010 KHC 4330] was pressed into service by learned counsel for the petitioner.
The issue therein relates to the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2005 and the UPSC selection vis-a-vis Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India. However, a clear distinction is drawn by the apex court in respect of consideration of the equality principle in the matter of selection and in the admission process, and held as follows in paragraph 29:
"29. There is an obvious distinction between qualifying through an entrance test for securing admission in a medical college and qualifying in the UPSC examinations since the latter W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 21 examination is conducted for filling up vacancies in the various civil services. In the former case, all the successful candidates receive the same benefit of securing admission in an educational institution. However, in the latter case there are variations in the benefits that accrue to successful candidates because they are also competing amongst themselves to secure the service of their choice. For example, most candidates opt for at least one of the first three services [i.e. Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Foreign Service (IFS) and Indian Police Service (IPS)] when they are asked for preferences. A majority of the candidates prefer IAS as the first option. In this respect, a Reserved Category candidate who has qualified as part of the general list should not be disadvantaged by being assigned to a lower service against the vacancies in the General Category especially because if he had availed the benefit of his Reserved Category status, he would have got a service of a higher preference. With the obvious intention of preventing such an anomaly, Rule 16(2) provides that an MRC candidate is at liberty to choose between the general quota or the respective Reserved Category quota".
Therefore, on an appreciation of the legal circumstances put forth by the petitioner, I am of the considered view, the challenge made to Clause 11.8.2 of KEAM Prospectus-2019 also cannot be sustained under law.
25. Apart from all these aspects, as is contended by the 2nd respondent, Ext.P1 Prospectus was published as early as on 01.02.2019 and the petitioner did not have any grievance against Ext.P1. Having found that petitioner is not likely to get admission, petitioner turned around and attacked the provisions of the W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 22 Prospectus, and it is equally important to note that none of the admitted students are made parties to the writ petition, and without doing so, petitioner seeks to quash Ext.P9 allotment list of the candidates. Needless to say, such a course of action sought for by the petitioner is without any basis and legality, since any such interference, if made by this Court, would upset the whole process of admission made, and petitioner being aware of the same and not making the affected persons parties to the writ petition will materially affect the rights accrued to them as per the admission process. Therefore, the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties in the party array.
26. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the law involved in the subject matter, I am of the considered opinion that, it cannot be said that the provisions of Ext.P1 Prospectus are in any manner illegal, unconstitutional or violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as contended by the petitioner. It is also equally clear that, no malpractices could be established by the petitioner, especially in view of the documents produced by the 2nd respondent along with the counter affidavit filed W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 23 remaining undisputed by the petitioner. I also do not think that petitioner has established any case of illegality, arbitrariness, malafides, fraud or any other legal infirmity on the part of the 2nd respondent and the State Government in conducting the admission process to the MBBS Course as per the KEAM Prospectus- 2019.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 24 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS PUBLISHED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AND APPROVED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER G.O(MS) NO.22/2019/ H.EDN DATED 1.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE CONFIRMATION PAGE OBTAINED FROM THE WEB SITE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 23.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE RESULT OBTAINED FROM THE WEB SITE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 25.6.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE OPTION LIST OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF PRINT OUT OF THE CANDIDATE'S DATA SHEET OF THE PETITIONER OBTAINED ON 13.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PAGES NO.1 TO 7 KERALA MEDICAL RANK LIST OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF ALLOTMENT LIST OF ALL INDIA QUOTA CANDIDATES DATED 29.7.2019, RELEVANT PAGES UP TO RANK NO.1382.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 31.7.2019 REGARDING VACANT/NEW SEATS AVAILABLE FOR ALLOTMENT ON 31.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE ALLOTMENT LIST PUBLISHED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 31.7.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF PRESS RELEASE DATED 3.8.2019. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF ANNEXURE
-III.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE ALLOTMENT OF SEATS AS PER MANDATORY AND SPECIAL RESERVATION QUOTAS AND ALLOTMENTS EFFECTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN MBBS ADMISSIONS IN GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGES IN 2019.
W.P.(C) No.21489 of 2019 25EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESS RELEASE DATED 23-07-2019, ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE NOTICE DATED 6-8-2019, PUBLISHED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.7.2019 TOGETHER WITH THE FAQ ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.CEE/5454/2018/KEAM-2019/TA1 DATED 27.06.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES ALLOTTED TO STATE MERIT (SM) SEATS IN GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGES FOR MBBS 2019- 2020.
EXHIBIT R2(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LAST RANK DETAILS OF ALLOTMENT TO MBBS AND BDS AS ON 31.07.2019. EXHIBIT R2(D) TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF ALLOTMENT TO GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGES DURING MOP UP COUNSELLING ON 07.08.2019.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE St/-