Kerala High Court
Navanith vs Indian Institute Of Science Education ... on 7 August, 2024
WP(C) No.27314/2024 1 / 14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
Wednesday, the 7th day of August 2024 / 16th Sravana, 1946
WP(C) NO. 27314 OF 2024(L)
PETITIONER:
NAVANITH, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O. K. SURESH KUMAR, QUARTER NO: 1-B,
TYPE-11, P.A.O STAFF QUARTERS, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR P.O, KERALA, PIN
- 671001
RESPONDENTS:
1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH BHOPAL,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, BHOPAL BYPASS ROAD, BHOPAL, PIN -
462066
2. THE CHAIRPERSON, JOINT ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, BHOPAL, BHOPAL BYPASS ROAD, BHOPAL,
PIN - 462066
3. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MARUTHAMALA.P.O,
THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695551
4. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, MARUTHAMALA.P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695551
Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to issue an interim order commanding the 2nd respondent to keep a
seat vacant in the 2nd round of allotment in IISER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM in
the general category and direct the 2nd respondent to provide the offer
letter for admission pending disposal of the above writ petition
This petition coming on for admission upon perusing the petition and
the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and upon hearing the arguments of
SRI.P.DEEPAK (SR.) along with M/S. RILGIN V.GEORGE, K.T.RAVEENDRAN,
AKSHARA K.P., Advocates for the petitioner, M/S. S.VISHNU, SHIREESH GUPTA,
Adv Vishnu S , Advocates for the respondents 1 and 2, and of SRI.MILLU
DANDAPANI, STANDING COUNSEL for the respondent 3, the court passed the
following:
WP(C) No.27314/2024 2 / 14
1
WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024
P.M. MANOJ, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C)No.27314 of 2024
-------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2024
ORDER
This is a case in which a student of 18 years has been denied his right to pursue his dream of becoming a Scientist, citing mere technicality. Being a meritorious student, the petitioner has applied for 5 year BS-MS dual degree course conducted by the 1st respondent- Indian Institute of Science Education and Research (for short IISER), Bhopal at its various Centres including Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Ext.P1 prospectus states the Eligibility Criteria as per Clause 3 as; 1) Applicants must be Indian nationals or PIO or OCI to apply for IISER Aptitude Test (for short IAT), 2024; 2) Candidates must have passed the Class XII (or equivalent) examination with science stream in 2022, 2023 or 2024 from any board recognized by Council of Boards of School Education in India COBSE; 3) Candidates must have taken at least three subjects among Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics during their Class XII (or equivalent) examination; and 4) Candidates belonging to SC/ST/PwD require to score a minimum of 55% marks in aggregate or equivalent grade in WP(C) No.27314/2024 3 / 14 2 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024 their Class XII(or equivalent) examination. Candidates belonging to other categories require to score a minimum of 60% marks in aggregate or equivalent grade in their Class XII (or equivalent) examination. Clause 4 states about the procedure of Admission and 5th Clause speaks about the performance criteria in the qualifying examination wherein the first sub-clause itself provides that candidates whose Class XII (or equivalent) examination results have not yet been declared, can apply for IAT 2024. However, their admission will be subject to fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria given above, i.e. 60% for the general category.
3. The application has to be submitted through their Portal as provided in Clause 11. The process starts on 1 st April, 2024 and closes on 13th May, 2024. Clause 12 speaks about the documents required for application which says; 1) Class X certificate and 2) Class XII (or equivalent examination) and an additional explanation was given, i.e; if Class XII (or equivalent) marks sheet is not available now, then you can instead upload a signed declaration form -
"Declaration by the Candidate in lieu of eligibility exam certificate/marksheet" which is provided in the Annexure. This should be done on or before 2nd July 2024 which was subsequently WP(C) No.27314/2024 4 / 14 3 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024 extended to 6th July 2024. Thereafter, Clause 13 speaks about the option to be exercised by the candidate, which reads :
". At the time of filling up the online application for counselling, a candidate will be shown 9 programs across 7 IISERs.
. Candidates are required to make a preference list from among these 9 programms that the candidate wants to be considered for admission.
. The preference order must be from the most preferred (first preference) to the least preferred(last preference).
. The preference list must contain at least one IISER program.
. A candidate will be considered ONLY for the IISER programs which are on the candidate's preference list. Consequently, a candidate will not be considered for admission to an IISER program that is not mentioned in the candidate's preference list."
4. Clause 15 of Ext.P1 Brochure speaks about the dates on which the entire admission process will be conducted. Finally, Clause 16 says; (a) the entire counselling process will be conducted online. There is no need for the candidates to visit any IISER in-person during the counselling process, (b) Candidates can check if they received admission offers by logging into their application portal, (c) Admission offers to any candidate will be given strictly based on the following factors: seat availability at each IISER in the current allocation round, IAT rank obtained by the candidate, IISER preferences given by the candidate, and the category to which the candidate belongs. Sub- clause (g) says a student who has chosen to FLOAT will be considered for seat allocation again in the next round. If they are eligible to WP(C) No.27314/2024 5 / 14 4 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024 secure a seat in an IISER that is higher in their preference list than the currently accepted one, they will be offered that seat. Sub-Clause
(h) says; if seats in preferred IISERs are filled, then the candidate will not be considered in further rounds of counselling. For example, if a candidate had given only two preferences as IISER-X and IISER-Y, and if the seats in these IISERs are filled, then the candidate will not be considered for seat allocation anymore. This process happens even if the student has not been allocated any seat in previous counselling rounds. Lastly sub-clause (i) describes that admission offers given are provisional. They will be confirmed only after the candidates report at the IISER where they have secured admission and provided all the required documents in original. These are the factual circumstances under which a candidate will have to go through the process of admission.
5. The petitioner herein participated in the admission process by submitting his application on 18.04.2024. At that point of time his XII mark list was not published. The petitioner was issued with a hall ticket as per Ext.P2. On 14.06.2024 only the petitioner was issued with a mark list of XII examination. Later, on 25.06.2024 the result of IAT was published where he secured rank-983. In compliance with the direction in Ext.P1 Brochure under Clause 16, the petitioner had WP(C) No.27314/2024 6 / 14 5 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024 submitted his choice of IISERs and it is stated that he had uploaded the XII mark sheet in the IAT portal. It is stated that his preference was uploaded on 06.07.2024 along with his Class XII mark list. However, no print-out of the successful uploading of the mark list was made available in the portal. Thereafter the first round of allotment commenced on 18.07.2024 which was ended on 25.07.2024. On the publication of Ext.P7, the petitioner came to know that the offers were given up to rank 1538 with respect to Thiruvananthapuram Centre, whereas his rank is 983, which was his third choice. Then he approached the 1st respondent through e-mail as per Ext.P8 whereby he stated that he had also attached his mark list along with the e-mail as well as the mark list was sent by post. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in response to Ext.P8 e-mail the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P10 e-mail communication stating that in view of the non-submission of Class XII marksheet, his candidature was not considered for admission.
6. This is the circumstance in which the petitioner preferred this Writ Petition in order to provide him a chance to participate provisionally in the 2nd round of allotment which was scheduled from 30.07.2024 to 03.08.2024 and to direct the 2nd respondent to keep a seat vacant in IISER, Thiruvananthapuram.
WP(C) No.27314/2024 7 / 146 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024
7. In response to that the learned counsel for the respondent stated that the entire admission procedures were done in accordance with the schedule prescribed in Ext.P1. The said schedule has to be scrupulously followed in order to ensure that the entire schedule fixed for the completion of admission as well as the commencement of classes to be accomplished. Any interference with that will completely affect the conduct of the course itself. In support of their contention, they have preferred a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the entire admission process, which is done through online, has been entrusted with the service provider - TATA Consultancy services. Around 96000 applications were considered out of which 2500 applications were found as defect. Petitioner's case is one among them. If any interference is made, that will affect the entire admission process. It is further submitted that in compliance with Clause 12 of the admission brochure, the petitioner has not submitted his Class XII mark list nor any declaration as provided in the said brochure. It is further contended that Annexure to Clause 12 specifically declares that the candidate who fails to upload scanned copies of the actual mark sheet will not be allotted a seat in any of the IISERs.
8. On the strength of Ext.R2(a) counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is trying to substantiate that there was no specific attempt on the WP(C) No.27314/2024 8 / 14 7 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024 part of the petitioner to upload his mark list as contended by him in the writ petition. That itself entails to keep away the petitioner from the admission process. Now even the 2nd round of admissions is also over and the offer letters have already been sent to the candidates for the 3rd round of allotment which is to commence from 07.08.2024 up to 09.08.2024.
9. I have heard Sri.P. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Shireesh Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.Millu Dandapani learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
10. I have considered the contentions of both sides. It is pertinent to note that the only case of respondents is that the petitioner has failed to upload his mark list, as provided under Clause 12 of the admission brochure and also failed to make any declaration as provided therein. However, the respondents have no case that the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria provided in paragraph 3 of the brochure, since he had scored 97% of mark in XII and scored 983 rank in the IAT. The only predicament pointed out by the counsel for the respondents is that if the petitioner is permitted to attend the allocation process, that will affect the entire admission process. WP(C) No.27314/2024 9 / 14 8 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024
11. In this regard, I have considered the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Charles K. Skaria and others v. Dr.C.Mathew and Others [(1980) 2 SCC 752] and Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and others [(2005) 9 SCC 779] as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner and also considered the judgments provided by the counsel for the respondents in Yoshika Verma v. Union of India and others passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and also judgment of this Court in WP(C) Nos.26198 & 26707 of 2023 dated 15.09.2023 with respect the same Institution and also Vineet Relhan v. Union Public Service Commission and another [2010 SCC Online Del 127].
12. Though the facts with respect to this case and the facts in Charles K. Skaria supra is different but the ratio that is to be considered is one and the same. Paragraph 20 of the judgment says, there is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in adding 10 marks for holders of a diploma. But to earn these extra 10 marks, the diploma must be obtained at least on or before the last date for application, not later. Proof of having obtained a diploma is different from the factum of having got it. Has the candidate, in fact, secured a diploma before the final date of application for admission to the degree course? That is the primary question. It is prudent to produce WP(C) No.27314/2024 10 / 14 9 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024 evidence of the diploma along with the application, but that is secondary. Relaxation of the date on the first is illegal, but not so on the second. Academic excellence, through a diploma for which extra mark is granted, cannot be denuded because proof is produced only later, yet before the date of actual selection. The emphasis is on the diploma; the proof thereof subserves the factum of possession of the diploma; and is not an independent factor. This ratio is prevailing in this case also since at the time of filing of the application, the petitioner has not obtained the mark list of XII. However, he was permitted to attend the aptitude test as provided under Clause 12 and he secured a good rank as 983. Later, on publication of results he scored 97% marks in Class XII examination which is much above the percentage of required marks as in Clause 3 of Ext.P1 it is stated the petitioner attempted to upload. The only question mooted by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the petitioner has not produced the proof of qualifying examination, i.e. XII mark list. On considering the same, it is the admitted fact that on the date of submitting the application results of XII was not declared. The results were declared on 14.06.2024 and the petitioner tried to upload the mark list, but it was not fruitful. This is the circumstance in which the ratio has to be looked into.
WP(C) No.27314/2024 11 / 1410 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024
13. The decision pointed out by the counsel for the respondent has much difference in fact as in all those cases the admission procedures were completed and classes commenced much prior to those judgments. Hence those judgments have nothing to do with this case.
14. The respondents have no case that the petitioner has not secured the pre-requisite qualifications, that 60% mark in Class XII examination, and a better score in the IAT 2024. The only reason pointed out for denying the admission is that if any opportunity is given to the petitioner, that will affect the entire admission process since as admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that around 2500 applications were rejected on the ground of defects. However, it is also admitted by the counsel for the respondents that during the process of admission, there is no provision for curing such defects as in the case of various entrance examinations conducted within the country by various authorities.
15. It is acknowledged by the counsel for the respondent that the mark list forwarded by the petitioner was obtained by them prior to the 2nd round of allotment. Thereby nothing prevented them from considering his case at least, during the 2nd round of allotment. However, ignoring such receipt of mark list, by raising technical WP(C) No.27314/2024 12 / 14 11 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024 grounds, the petitioner was denied an opportunity in the 2nd round of allotment.
16. It is further argued by the counsel for the respondent that if the petitioner is permitted by this Court to participate in the allotment process, that will prejudice the candidates who were issued with offer letters. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that when the matter came up for consideration on 01.08.2024, when a querry was made by this Court, the counsel for the respondent submitted that in lieu of an interim order, he would advise his client to keep one seat, at Thiruvananthapuram Centre, apart from this allotment process. On considering that submission, I am of the view that no prejudice will be caused to any other candidates who were issued with offer letters in the ensuing 3rd round of allotment as such offer is extended by the counsel for the respondent during the 2 nd round of allotment. More over, even if an offer letter is issued to a candidate that will be subject to the availability of seat and there is no accrued right to such candidate as per Ext.P1.
In these circumstances, I feel that an injustice is met to the petitioner. Hence, considering the paucity of time as 3 rd round allocation commenced today, i.e. 07.08.2024, I propose to grant an interim direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the candidature WP(C) No.27314/2024 13 / 14 12 WP(C) No. 27314 of 2024 of the petitioner in the 3rd allocation process scheduled between 07.08.2024 and 09.08.2024, necessary offers shall be extended to the petitioner permitting him to appear in the selection process to be conducted in these days. Needless to say, the same shall be subject to the result of this Writ Petition.
Post on 19.08.2024.
Sd/-
P.M. MANOJ,
JUDGE
ttb
(H/o)
07-08-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
WP(C) No.27314/2024 14 / 14
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27314/2024
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BROCHURE
PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLOSING RANKS
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.07.2024
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 22.07.2024
EXHIBIT R2(a) True copy of the Technical Report dated 05.08.2024
07-08-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar