Kerala High Court
Afrah Shaik vs State Of Kerala on 16 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
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942
WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER:
AFRAH SHAIK,
AGED 18 YEARS,
AMEEN MANZIL, ZAKARIA BAZAR, ALAPPUZHA - 688 012.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
SMT.RESMI G. NAIR
SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHPUARAM - 695 001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY ADV. SRI.V.MANU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who got admission for B. Arch course in a self financing College on the basis of her rank in the entrance examination held for KEAM 2020 has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to consider her higher options on the basis of her ranking.
2. The petitioner was rank no.250 as per the results of the KEAM 2020 entrance examination conducted for admission to undergraduate course in Architecture, in the common category and rank no.59 in the Muslim category as per Ext.P4 category list. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P5 notification dated 12.10.2020, inviting options for the 1st allotment to B.Arch courses scheduled on 16.10.2020, which was postponed to 23.10.2020. In the 1st allotment, as per WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 3 Ext.P6 memo, issued on 23.10.2020, the petitioner was allotted to the College of Architecture, Vellanad, which is a self financing college. As per Ext.P8 notification issued on 07.11.2020, the 2nd respondent invited options from candidates for 2nd allotment in Architecture courses to be submitted from 07.11.2020 to 09.11.2020. In the note to Ext.P8 publication, it was stated that it would be the last allotment to the self financing Engineering/ Architecture/ Pharmacy Colleges and the availability of higher option for those getting allotment in the self financing Engineering/ Archetecture/ Pharmacy colleges would be subject to the orders to be issued by Government, which would be published in the website. It is stated that in the allotment held on 10.11.2020, the candidates up to rank no.58 in the category wise list of Muslim got allotment to WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 4 Government Colleges and the petitioner was the next candidate, who was to be considered in the next allotment. She points out that in Ext.P9 notification published on 10.11.2020, after the 2nd phase of allotment, it was stated that the higher option of candidates, who got admission in Self financing Colleges, would not be considered for the subsequent allotments, in the light of the various government orders.
3. The complaint of the petitioner is that she was denied her opportunity to participate in the next allotment on account of the conditions stipulated in Exts.P8 and P9 notifications.
4. According to the petitioner, neither Ext.P14 order passed by Government on 05.10.2020 providing for the fee structure and allotment of seats in Self Financing Colleges issued on 05.10.2020 nor Ext.P13 order WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 5 carrying out amendment to certain provisions in Ext.P14 order nor the prospectus, contained any provision, which prevented persons like petitioner from participating in any number of allotments based on their higher options. It is argued that it is arbitrary to deny her opportunity to pursue her studies in Government College just because she happened to get allotted to a self financing College.
5. Sri. V.Manu, the learned Senior Government Pleader, relying on 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 argued that petitioner cannot have any right to be considered on the basis of her higher options any further. It is stated that in Ext.P8 as well as in Ext.P9, candidates were informed that it would be their last allotment and that higher options WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 6 will not be available to them any further. 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 the restriction imposed.
6. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that there was no provision in the prospectus, which indicated any restriction on the candidates getting allotted to Self Financing Colleges and pointed out that the dates given in Ext.P14 Government Order for completing the allotments was modified as per Ext.P13 order, it is seen that the prospectus was published much before Ext.P14 order of Government, was issued after agreement was entered into with the Self Financing Colleges.
7. At any rate, the judgment of the Division Bench in Hanna Thasnim's case (supra) WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 7 squarely applies to the present case. In that case petitioner therein approached this Court when students lower down in the rank list were given admission in Government College in the top 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:
"xxxx Learned Government Pleader contended that the students, who got admitted as per the stipulations in Ext.P2 to Government Colleges in WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 8 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. xxxx
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 WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 9 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 been violated."
8. In the present case the Government orders Exts.P14 and P13 are available in the website. An outer limit is prescribed in it for completing the allotment to Self Financing Colleges.
9. Complaint of the petitioner herein is that she lost her opportunity to exercise option after the 2nd allotment held on 10.11.2020, in which candidates upto rank no.58, were allotted. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there were only two allotments for B.Arch course.
10. In view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, it cannot be said that the WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 10 restrictions imposed in Exts.P8 and P9 notifications, for further allotment, based on her higher options is illegal.
11. It is seen that as per Ext.P14 order issued by Government on the basis of agreement entered into between the Self Financing Colleges on 05.10.2020, as modified by Ext.P13 order, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has to complete all allotments before 16.11.2020. It also provides that students already allotted to College and admitted in the College either by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations or the Management shall not be re-allotted after the final allotment. It is seen that the 2nd respondent has acted in tune with these orders. Though those Government orders are available in the website, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have ignored WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 11 the observations of this court in paragraph 35 of the judgment in Hanna Thasnim's case (supra), that the authorities should be more vigilant and careful, shall be looked into.
12. 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 WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 12 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.
13. The complaint of the petitioner is that she could not participate in the 3rd allotment. The learned Government Pleader submitted that there were only 2 allotments, which are 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.
ww WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 13 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE PROSPECTUS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CANDIDATE'S DATA SHEET OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE CARD OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF NATA 2020.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE CATEGORY WISE LIST OF THE ADMISSION TO ARCHITECTURE COURSE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.CEE/4600/2019/KEAM-2020/TA4 IN RESPECT OF FIRST ALLOTMENT TO B.ARCH COURSE ON 12.10.2020 SCHEDULED ON 16.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT MEMO DATED 23.10.2020 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION LIST OF THE ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES 2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.CEE/4600/2019/KEAM-2020/TA4 DATED 07.11.2020 INVITED CANDIDATES FOR THE SECOND ALLOTMENT IN RESPECT OF ARCHITECTURE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION VIDE NO.CEE/4600/2019/KEAM-2020/TA4 DATED 10.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OPTION LIST OF THE ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE COURSES 2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UPDATED ON 07.11.2020 TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.11.2020 BY EMAIL TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
WP(C).No.24837 OF 2020(D) 14 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT PROVING FORWARDING OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.395/2020/H.EDN DATED 07.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.335/2020/H.EDN DATED 05.10.2020 REGARDING THE FEES STRUCTURE AND ALLOTMENT OF SEATS IN RESPECT OF SELF FINANCING ENGINEERING COLLEGES UNDER ARCHITECTURE COLLEGE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION.