Kerala High Court
Sreelakshmi Pradeep vs The Commissioner For Entrance ... on 19 November, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KER 1313
Author: P.V.Asha
Bench: P.V.Asha
W.P(C).No.25415/2020 1
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.25415 OF 2020(B)
PETITIONER:
SREELAKSHMI PRADEEP
AGED 18 YEARS, D/O. PRADEEP KUMAR K.B.,
AMBADIYIL HOUSE, VETTIKKAL, MANNUTHY P.O.,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 651.
BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SRI.K.V.WINSTON
SMT.ANU JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI
NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE PRINCIPAL,
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, SREEKARYAM - KULATHOOR ROAD
P. O., SREEKARIYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
KERALA, PIN - 695 016.
3 THE PRINCIPAL,
GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680 009.
4 THE PRINCIPAL
T.K.M.COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, T.K.M.C. P. O.,
KARICODE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 004.
5 THE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT RAJEEV GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
KOTTAYAM, VELLORE P.O., PAMPADY,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 689 501.
SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.MANU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).No.25415/2020 2
.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner got qualified in the National Aptitude Test in Architecture conducted by the National Council for Architecture with a score of 169/200 and secured rank no.310 in KEAM 2020. Even though she had submitted option for allotment in several Government Colleges, she secured admission in the College of Architecture, Thiruvananthpuram, which is a self financing college. Her complaint is that she is unable to register her option for mop-up allotments, pursuant to Ext P6 notification, because of the restriction imposed on those who got allotment in a self financing colleges. According to petitioner, the restriction will result in admission of less meritorious students in Government 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. Heard learned Counsel appearing on both sides.
4. In the judgment in Hanna Thasnim's case (supra), W.P(C).No.25415/2020 3 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 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 para 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 W.P(C).No.25415/2020 4 Art.14 of the Constitution of India have been violated."
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 the petitioner is 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 1st respondent had to complete the allotments to self financing Colleges before 16.11.2020 and there cannot be any re-allotment of students already allotted and admitted in such Colleges. 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 para 5 of the judgment it was observed as follows:
"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- W.P(C).No.25415/2020 5 up allotment is already over.
In these circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this case. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE rkc W.P(C).No.25415/2020 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCORECARD OF THE PETITIONER IN THE NATIONAL APTITUDE TEST IN ARCHITECTURE (NATA) 2020 DATED 18.09.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SUBMISSION CONFIRMATION REPORT RELATING TO THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE RESULT CONCERNING THE PETITIONER IN THE KEAM 2020.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST OPTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES 2020.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND OPTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES 2020.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16 NOVEMBER 2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED NOVEMBER 7, 2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.