Kerala High Court
Abhirami Prakash vs State Of Kerala on 19 November, 2020
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 28TH KARTHIKA, 1942
WP(C).No.25501 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONER:
ABHIRAMI PRAKASH
AGED 18 YEARS
D/O. PRAKASH, PALACKATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, ARAKULAM P.O.,
AND VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT
PIN - 685 588.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN
SHRI.PRAVEEN S.
SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G
SRI.DIPU JAMES
SHRI.MATHEW K.T.
SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,
PADMAVILASAM ROAD, FORT, PAZHAVANGADI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.
3 THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
BY SRI.V.MANU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.25501 OF 2020(K) 2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of November 2020 The petitioner appeared in the Entrance Examination conducted by KEAM 2020. She belongs to Hindu Ezhava Community recognized as Socially and Educationally Backward Community. On getting qualified in NATA - 2020 conducted by Council of Architecture with a score of 121.5/200, she was allotted to Mangalam School of Architecture, which is a Self Financing College, as per Ext.P4 Memo, dated 23.10.2020. The complaint of the petitioner is that even though the third respondent issued a notification Ext.P5 on 16.11.2020, calling upon the option of candidates to participate in mop-up allotment, the petitioner was not denied the opportunity. It is stated that she was allotted to a College, which was 10th in her option list. According to her, in case, an opportunity was granted to her, she would have got admission in any of the colleges for which she had given higher options. It is stated that the candidates portal was kept open on 12.11.2020 after 12.00 p.m; but she could not exercise her option and she could not also appear in the mop- WP(C).No.25501 OF 2020(K) 3 up allotment on account of the restriction imposed on those who joined Self Financing Colleges.
2. As pointed out by Sri. V. Manu, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the issue raised by the petitioner is covered against the petitioner, by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hanna Thasnim v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 KHC 210] rendered in more or less similar circumstances. The learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and Others [2001 KHC 1650] also, in support of his contention.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, it is seen that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Hanna Thasnim's case (supra). In that case, the petitioner therein approached this Court when students lower down in the rank list were given admission in Government College in the mop up allotment, in which petitioner was unable to participate because all her higher options were cancelled on her admission in a self financing college, even in the absence of any WP(C).No.25501 OF 2020(K) 4 notification published in the website regarding the same and her homepage was removed from the portal. The procedure adopted by the respondents was upheld seeing that it was in tune with the provisions in the agreement entered into between the self financing colleges and the Government. The observations in relevant portion of paragraph Nos.30 and 31 of the said judgment read as follows:
"30. xxx Learned Government Pleader contended that the students, who got admitted as per the stipulations in Ext. P2 to Government Colleges in accordance with their merit and option form one class and those who got admitted to self financing colleges on the basis of their merit and option form another class. Their rights and liabilities are distinctly classified in Ext. P2 itself. That classification is vivid and it is perfectly reasonable. Learned Government Pleader contended that it is all the more important to remember that only because of the agreement between the Government and the Management Consortium, students like the petitioner got a broader avenue to study in the desired stream. Reasonableness of classification depends on the objects to be achieved by doing so. Only requirements are that the decision making process should be transparent, fair and reasonable. xxx
31. xxxx In this case, the fact that the agreement executed between the Government and the Management Consortium of self financing dental colleges enured to the benefit of a large number of students will have to be considered. Those students who willingly opted for self financing colleges along with Government Colleges form a distinct class and those who opted for Government Colleges alone form a different class. This classification is expressly discernible from the terms in Ext. P2 itself. Therefore, we do not find any illegality, arbitrariness or unfair deal in the classification as mentioned above, Hence, we are unable to find that the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Art.14 of the Constitution of India have WP(C).No.25501 OF 2020(K) 5 been violated."
4. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, it cannot be said that the restrictions imposed by the respondents for further allotment based on the higher options of petitioner are illegal. It is seen that the said restriction is imposed in tune with the provisions contained in the agreement entered into between the Self Financing Colleges and the Government Orders issued based on that, according to which the 1 st respondent had to complete the allotments to self financing Colleges before 16.11.2020 and there cannot be any re-allottment of students already allotted and admitted in such Colleges.
5. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the apex court has in the judgment in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and Others: (2001)8 SCC 355, upheld a Government Order which provided that the allotment of subject (speciality) and college of study made on the basis of option exercised by a candidate would be final and the candidates cannot be permitted to change the subject or the College later. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, it was observed as follows:
WP(C).No.25501 OF 2020(K) 6
"5. The grievance made is that if a choice subject like Surgery and Medicine is given up by a candidate and that seat becomes vacant it may go to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list. This is only a fortuitous circumstance dependent on so many contingencies like the student, who has been allotted a seat in Medicine, giving up the said seat and that seat falling vacant and thereafter the same is allotted to a candidate who is lower in rank in the merit list. Such freak circumstances cannot be the test of reasonableness of the Rule."
Moreover, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the mop-up allotment is already over. In these circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.ASHA JUDGE Bb/20/11/2020 WP(C).No.25501 OF 2020(K) 7 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF PROSPECTUS KEAM-2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT ON 30.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SCORE CARD DATED 18.9.2020 ISSUED BY NATA.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF OPTION LIST DATED 12.10.2020 EXERCISED BY PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ALLOTMENT MEMO DATED
23.10.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION
NO.CEE/4600/2019/KEAM-2020/TA4 DATED
16.11.2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF PRESS RELEASE
NO.CEE/4600/2019/KEAM-2020/TA4 DATED
16.11.2020 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
[True copy]
P.A to Judge
Bb