IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17331 of 2009(J)
1. ANJU.B, ASWATHI, PRAYAR NORTH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.T.R.RAJAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :29/06/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.17331 OF 2009
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner claims that she belongs to Dheevara community
and is entitled to be classified as belonging to SEBC and OEC.
According to her, she applied for the common admission test
on 9.2.2009. Thereafter, Ext.P6 was issued amending the
prospectus. The income limit for availing the benefit of
reservation was raised from Rs.2.5 lakhs to Rs.4.5 lakhs.
According to her, while submitting the application, she did not
claim the benefit of reservation because the prospectus, as it
then stood, provided reservation only for persons whose
parents’ annual income is below Rs.2.5 lakhs. Her prayer is
that she be considered against the general merit quota and
also against the quota for SEBC and OEC.
2.Learned Government Pleader submits, on instructions, that
though the prospectus, as it originally stood, contained the
limit of Rs.2.5 lakhs as the income limit of the parents for a
WPC.17331/09
Page numbers
candidate to claim the benefit of reservation, a second
notification issued before the petitioner submitted her
application had clarified that reservation is available for
persons with income limit up to Rs.4.5 lakhs and therefore, the
petitioner cannot now plead that she was ignorant of that
term.
3.We are dealing with the case of an adolescent stepping into
the realm of higher education. It is quite well settled that
prospectus forms the Magna Carta for admission. If there is
conflict between different documents relating to admission,
the settled principle is that the prospectus will prevail. The
applicant obtained the prospectus by paying for it. The
applicants treat it as the gospel for the purpose of applying for
the course. Obviously therefore, even if there is any conflict,
the benefit should necessarily go to the petitioner.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, it is directed that if the petitioner’s
claim that she is entitled to the benefit of being a member of
WPC.17331/09
Page numbers
Dheevara community and hence entitled to be treated as
belonging to SEBC and OEC shall be considered by the
competent among the respondents without reference to the
fact that she had no such a claim in her application. This writ
petition is allowed further directing that the petitioner will
produce a copy of this judgment and necessary representation
before the Controller of Entrance Examinations at the earliest.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,
Judge.
kkb.30/6.