Kerala High Court
Sheez Backer A vs The Admission Supervisory Committee ... on 16 August, 2016
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 33922 of 2016 (M)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
SHEEZ BACKER A
S/O ABDUL SALAM A, ACHMPATTU, ULLANAM (PO),
PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL
COLLEGES IN KERALA,
PRASANTH BUILDING, M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
695011.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE KARUNA MEDICAL COLLEGE
VILAYODI, CHITTUR, PIN:678103, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
R1 BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMI
R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
R3 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-
10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 33922 of 2016 (M)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF THE NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY
CUM ENTRANCE TEST, NEET (UG)-2016 OF THE PETITIONER DATED
16.8.2016.
EXHIBTI P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT
DATED 13.10.2016.
EXHIBIT P3: THE PETITIONER ALSO FILED A COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON 13.10.2016. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
13.10.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL
-----------------------
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 25th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon, J.
The petitioner is before this Court, seeking admission for the first year MBBS 2016 - '17 in the 3rd respondent College. The case is that because of the malicious exercise pursued by the 3rd respondent college in connection with the admission; they did not effect necessary notification, requirements, particulars and such other details in their website; despite many an order issued by the first respondent/Admission Supervisory Committee at different points of time, as a result of which, the petitioner cause to be prevented from making application for admission to the first year MBBS course.
2. Heard Sri. T. Krishnanunni, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at length.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had actually intended to apply for admission to the 3rd respondent college, but, he was prevented from making application W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 2 : initially, by virtue of the fact that fee structure was not notified by the said college and hence 'online' application could not be submitted, as stated in paragraph 4. Thereafter, 'online' application was started to be accepted, but the same came to be closed on 06.09.2016 by 10.00 p.m. It is stated that there was violation of the orders passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee in this regard. Reference is made to the further orders passed by the Admission Supervisory Committee, particularly on 15.09.2016, taking over the admission because of the violation, and the subsequent orders as well. The case as projected by the petitioner before this Court and sought to be emphasised during the course of arguments as contained in paragraphs 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the writ petition is reproduced below, to avoid verbal repetition.
"5. But inspite of the directions by the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent did not comply with the directions and the petitioner herein did not get any chance to apply before the 3rd respondent college. However, on 16.09.2016, 11.09 AM onwards, the Medical College provided the submission of online applications. It was available up to 19.09.2016, as per the revised order. But the Medical College limited the W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 3 : time of submission only up to 10.00 PM instead of Midnight of that date. Further the web site of the above college was out of order. However, the petitioner on 16.10.2016, by 6 pm tried to apply online through their web site but found it to be hanged. Also few of the petitioners friends intimated that though applications were completed it did not generate any receipts. The petitioner continued doing the same on several occasions again but the application could be completed as the site was out of order. The petitioner did not know that he should file a complaint before the 1st respondent at that time and hence did not file any complaint in time. But the procedures adopted by the 3rd respondent was incorrect and was in violation to the directions issued by the 1st respondent. Due to their recalcitrant act, the petitioner herein was denied an opportunity to apply.
..................................................................... ....................................................................
8. A perusal of the report of the 1st respondent would also reveal that the Medical College did not comply with submission of records and publication of the same in its website. It was clearly directed in the order of the ASC dated 19.09.2016 that the Medical College has to submit the total online application lists, the steps W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 4 : taken by the Medical College to rectify the mistakes of the applicants in the online applications, the complete list of eligible applicants with details, the complete list of rejected applicants with reasons, the rank list of the applicants, if the process of counselling is complete, the list of proposed candidates for MBBS admission, the vacancy position/waiting list, to fill up the vacant seats only from the waiting list and not through spot admissions from outside the waiting list and the NRI applicants be admitted from the NEET maintaining inter se merit. But the Medical College has not so far published any of the above information, thereby violating the entire process of MBBS admissions and defeating the fairness of the admissions process.
9. .......................
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the order dated 28.09.2016 in Civil Apepal No. 9862 of 2016 set aside the condition number (i) in Paragraph 10 of the impugned order of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 26.08.2016, in W.P.(C) No. 28414 and other petitions. It was further directed that the Court was no inclined to interfere with the admissions made by the respective colleges. Thus, the totality of the order shows that after 28.09.2016, no Medical College can admit any applicants for MBBS course and such vacant seats are W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 5 : to be filled by the State through combined counselling and allotment.
11. But due to the deliberate non publication of information, as required by the ASC, the MBBS applicants, the public and the ASC are unable to access and scrutinise the inter se merit of the applicants, their academic excellence and transparency of admissions made by the Medical College, particularly in the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 28.09.2016. Even in the Order dated 26.08.2016 in W.P.(C) Nos. 28041, 28150, 28151, 28197, 28210 and 28414 of 2016, the Hon'ble High Court on Kerala in paragraph 10 condition number (ii), directed that the online application list be uploaded for the scrutiny of the ASC immediately on the expiry of the last date of submission of applications by the Medical College. But the Medical College has failed to submit such lists. This is violation of the Court Order.
12. In the approval order dated 06.09.2016 as well as in the revised approval order dated 10.09.2016, the ASC has specifically directed the Medical College to submit the corrected prospectus. In the approval order itself, the 35 seats divided against the dependents of various Trusts, Associations and Committee under the Management quota were removed from the prospectus W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 6 : and the Medical College was directed to fill up these seats under merit category from NEET 2016 list, basing on transparency, inter se merit, maintaining academic excellence, without any capitation fee collection and the exploitation of the students. The challenge against the above finding was upheld by the Court. The Medical College has not so far published this information bringing the 35 seats under merit and admitting MBBS students accordingly. Hence, there exist confusion in the minds of the aspiring MBBS applicants about these seats because of lack of clarity of prospectus information and correction not being effected, as per the prospectus approval order.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings pursued by the 3rd respondent, right from the time of inviting the application, till the proceedings were finalized, are per se wrong and illegal in all respects. Hence the challenge.
5. After hearing the learned senior counsel at length, we find that the case now projected by the petitioner is a totally new one, which does not find a place anywhere in the grievance projected by the petitioner at earlier point of time. Obviously, the petitioner did not have any such case that he had intended to apply for admission to the first year MBBS course in the 3rd respondent college; that he W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 7 : had attempted to make such application; that there was violation on the part of the 3rd respondent Institution; or that he had raised a grievance before the Committee or the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, as the case may be. The petitioner woke up from the deep slumber, as a matter of revelation and turned up before the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations on 07.10.2016, in connection with "spot admission" scheduled on that date. As a matter of fact, admission had come to a close on 30.09.2016. No grievance was there for the petitioner till that time. But in the course of further proceedings, the Apex Court extended the time for completing the procedural formalities from 30.09.2016 to 07.10.2016. It was at this point of time [pursuant to the notification issued by the Commissioner] that the petitioner turned up before the Commissioner on 07.10.2016; stating that, he was ready to satisfy the fees then and there. But his claim was not considered, as the authorities of the Government, made a declaration/announcement on the premises that admission exercise would be restricted to the specified categories, in the light of the interim order passed by this Court on 06.10.2016 in W.P.(C) Nos. 32185 and 32186 of 2016. In effect the claim of the petitioner W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 8 : was not considered, which gave rise to the grievance.
6. It is contended by the petitioner, that, he rushed to the Committee and also before the Commissioner immediately, by filing complaints. Ext. P2 is the complaint filed before the Committee, whereas Ext. P3 is the complaint filed before the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations. The case projected in Exts. P2 and P3 is virtually the verbatim reproduction as to the actual grievance, which only pertains to the 'spot admission' conducted on 07.10.2016 at the Medical College, Thiruvanathapuram. The case of the petitioner, as discernible from the said complaints, is that, the petitioner was present in the premise along with his father, with the notified fees of Rs.7.45 lakhs, which was affordable to him. But, in the very next paragraph, i.e. 3rd paragraph, what is stated by him is that, he could not apply to the college because of the huge fee structure. The position is reiterated in the subsequent paragraph as well. For convenience of reference, these three paragraphs are extracted below :
"Here I would like to invite kind attention of your good office to the fact that, I actually appeared for the last round of spot admission held on 07.10.2016 to acquire a seat for MBBS in KARUNA MEDICAL W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 9 : COLLEGE, PALAKKAD, since their notified fees i.e. Rs.7,45,000 [Rupees 7 lakhs 45 thousand] which was affordable to me. But at the time of spot admission, I heard an announcement from the Government official that only certain candidates will be allowed to appear for spot admission to Karuna Medical College i.e. those candidates who had already registered or those who had lodged some complaints regarding admission of Karuna Medical College.
I was not in a position to apply for MBBS admission in KARUNA MEDICAL COLLEGE as their fee structure was very huge as per the information from their office, which was not at all affordable to me. I myself with my parent was preset at the venue from 8.30 am 07/10/2016 upto 04.00 am 08/10/2016 with all documents and sufficient cash as per official notification. In short no admission to Karuna Medical College had occurred during last spot admission on 07.10.2016. Only petitions were collected from those candidates who had already registered or lodged complaints.
I hereby conclude that I had not initially registered with KARUNA MEIDCAL COLLEGE due to their huge fee structure. But as per new notification, their fee structure is less than earlier, which is W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 10 : affordable. So humbly request your good office to give me a chance to register or to apply for MBBS admission in KARUNA MEDICAL COLLEGE at the time of official allotment as per the decision of Government or on the basis of direction of honourable High Court of Kerala and Supreme Court of India as I am expecting.
7. Coming to Ext. P3 submitted before the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, exactly same is the case projected by the petitioner. Herein as well, it is conceded that he had not initially made any application to the 3rd respondent College due to their huge fee structure. It is however stated that, as per the notification, their fee structure is less than the earlier and hence affordable. In the previous paragraph, he says that he is ready to satisfy the fees of Rs.7.45 lakhs at the time of 'spot admission', which is the same fee as notified by the College in their Prospectus. Which is the notification, whereby the fee structure was stated as reduced and to what extent, if any, are not made out and the contentions made by the petitioner appear to be self contradictory. To say the least, the case now projected before this Court in this writ petition, is cent percent contrary to the case W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 11 : projected by the petitioner in Exts. P2 and P3.
8. It appears, that the petitoner has approached this Court with the grievance projected with reference to the 'lapses' on the part of the college, which in fact was not the deciding factor or mitigating circumstances, by virtue of which the petitioner was not in a position to make the application. We do not mean to say whether the admission process pursued by the 3rd respondent college is correct, or not; as it is not a matter to be considered in this writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case, as projected in the writ petition, being contrary to the grievance projected in Exts. P2 and P3, the writ petition is found as devoid of any merit. The petitioner had not approached this Court earlier, if at all he was having any grievance. This Court is also of the view that, much of the time of this Court is sought to be wasted. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is only aged 18 years, we restrict ourselves and impose only a nominal cost of Rs.5000/-, which shall be satisfied before the Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre, within one month. Failing which, it will be open for the Registrar General to issue necessary W.P (C) No. 33922 of 2016 : 12 : certificate to the beneficiary, for realization of the cost. A copy of this verdict shall be given to the Director, Kerala Mediation and Conciliation Centre, for information.
sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sd/-
P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge