IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 33546 of 2007(R)
1. ANSAR P.B., AGED 23 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/11/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NOs. 33546 & 33581 OF 2007
=========================
Dated this the 14th day of November, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners are denied admission to LLB course for the
reason that they have not produced the Degree Certificates.
Petitioners submit that they have produced marklists and that on
the strength of the marklists so produced, they should be given
admission.
2. In my view, this issue is squarely covered by the
provisions contained in the prospectus for admission to the three
year LLB course 2007-08 in the Government Law Colleges in
Kerala, which has been produced as Ext.P11 in WP(C) No.33581
of 2007. The relevant clause of the prospectus is extracted
below for reference.
“Clause 16: Documents to be produced at the time of
Centralised Allotment Process (CAP).
(i) Admit card of the Entrance Examination.
(ii) SSLC or any relevant school records to prove date of
birth.
(iii) Original Mark lists of all parts and Provisional
Degree/Degree Certificate of the Qualifying Exam with
photocopies of the same.
(iv) The originals of the certificates the copies of which had
been submitted with the Application.
WPC Nos.33546 & 33581/07
: 2 :
(v) Authorization letter in the prescribed form, given in
the Annexure VII, if the candidate is not attending the
CAP.
(vi) Any other documents mentioned in the Notification of
CAP.
Note: All certificates as above must be produced for
verification at the time of CAP itself. Candidates WILL NOT be
given any chance to produce the original documents/certificates
asked for, after CAP.”
From the above, it is evident that in addition to the
marklists, provisional degree/degree certificate of the qualifying
exam with photocopies has to be produced at the time of
Centralised Allotment Process itself. It is also made clear that
the candidates will not be given any chance to produce the
original documents after Centralised Allotment Process. In this
case, it is admitted that the petitioners have not satisfied Clause
16 of the prospectus. If that be so, the respondents are right in
denying their admission.
Writ petitions are devoid of merit and are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Rp
