High Court Kerala High Court

Sakeer vs Principal Secretary on 11 February, 2009

Kerala High Court
Sakeer vs Principal Secretary on 11 February, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 4433 of 2009(C)


1. SAKEER, AGED 24 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DIRECTOR,

3. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,

4. KERALA UNIVERSITY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SANTHARAM.P

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :11/02/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.4433 of 2009
             ---------------------------------
           Dated, this the 11th day of February, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claims that he was an applicant for B.Pharm

through lateral entry.

2. It is stated that in the rank list prepared, he was in 11th

position and in the reservation list, 3rd position. It is stated that in

addition to the 10% seats earmarked for the lateral entry students,

the Government ordered that even the other vacant seats be filled up

adopting the same method. It is stated that there are 24 seats

available and despite the availability of students, seats are left

vacant. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P9

judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.34425/2008.

3. The course in question was commenced in 2007-2008,

and therefore, at this distance of time, the prayer made is highly

belated. True, the case of the petitioner is similarly situated with

that of the petitioner in Ext.P9 judgment referred to above. But,

however, that was a case where soon after admission was denied,

the petitioner therein had approached this Court and was vigilant to

WP(C) No.4433/2009
-2-

prosecute his rights. Even claiming the benefit of the judgment, the

conduct of the party is relevant, and therefore, I must hold that the

petitioner has approached this Court belatedly.

4. For that reason, I am not inclined to direct that at this

stage, that the petitioner should also be granted admission.

The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg