High Court Kerala High Court

Anju R. vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Anju R. vs State Of Kerala on 15 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27708 of 2010(K)


1. ANJU R., D/O. M.D.MANI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,

3. THE REGISTRAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/09/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 27708 OF 2010 (k)
                =====================

         Dated this the 15th day of September, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, standing

counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and standing counsel for the 4th

respondent.

2. Petitioner passed BA English with first class. Thereafter

she made an online application for admission to MA English.

Ext.P3 is the copy of the application. According to the petitioner,

in the ranked list published by the 4th respondent, she was Rank

No.111. However she was not alloted to any college. It is in

these circumstances the writ petition is filed.

3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th

respondent on instruction submits that, the application forms

required the candidate to exercise option of the colleges to which

they desired to be admitted. It is stated that in the application

form, petitioner did not exercise any option, and that, it was on

account of the above that the petitioner was not allotted to any of

the colleges.

4. The correctness of this submission made by the

WPC No. 27708/10
:2 :

learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent cannot

be doubted in view of the contents of Ext.P3 application and also

what is stated in Ext.P7 representation made by the petitioner to

the Minister for Education. Therefore, the 4th respondent cannot

be faulted for not allotting the petitioner to any of the colleges for

MA English as sought for by the petitioner.

5. However, the second allotment is yet to commence,

and if there are vacancies, even if the petitioner is allowed to

cure the defect and on that basis her application is considered, no

prejudice will be caused to any third parties. In that view of the

matter, I direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioner to

exercise option and on that basis consider her for allotment to

any of the colleges where seat is available.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp