High Court Kerala High Court

Fathima vs Central Board Of Secondary … on 30 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Fathima vs Central Board Of Secondary … on 30 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30146 of 2010(P)


1. FATHIMA, AGED 19 YEARS,D/O.ABDUL SALAM,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. SHAMEENA, AGED 19 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICE,

3. THE SECRETARY,

4. THE MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :30/09/2010

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

           ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
               W.P.(C) No. 30146 of 2010 P
           ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
           Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioners appeared in the All India Pre-

Medical/Dental Entrance Examination, 2010. They were

included in the ranked list also. According to the petitioners,

even after the second round of counselling, there are seats

vacant in the All India Quota and, therefore, they should be

considered for allotment to those seats.

2. In my view, the prayer sought is impermissible in

view of the time schedule prescribed by the Apex Court in its

judgment in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Others Vs. Union of

India and Others [2005 92) SCC 65]. In terms of the said

judgment, the second round of counselling is to be over by

08-08-2010 and the students are to join within fifteen days.

Going by the said schedule, even if there are vacancies after

the second round of counselling, the seats will stand reverted

to the respective State quota and no further allotment is

WPC.30146/10
: 2 :

permissible. This Court is bound by the directions of the Apex

Court and, therefore, the prayer sought for in the writ petition

cannot be granted. True, the counsel for the petitioner has a

contention that the schedule prescribed by the Apex Court is

not complied with. In my view, if it is so, it is a matter for the

aggrieved to approach the Apex Court and seek appropriate

reliefs.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks