IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23716 of 2010(L)
1. MALAVIKA S.RETNA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE
For Petitioner :SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/08/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.23716 OF 2010 (L)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Prayer sought in this writ petition is to direct the respondents
to consider the petitioner for allotment to B. Arch course, as per the
conditions stipulated in Ext.P1 prospectus. Petitioner also seeks a
declaration that she is entitled to be considered for allotment for
admission to B. Arch course and that the respondents are bound to
consider her candidature, on the basis of Ext.P5, the higher options
exercised by the petitioner.
2. Facts of the case are that, in pursuance to Ext.P1, the
prospectus for admission to professional Degree Courses, 2010,
petitioner submitted an application for admission and in Ext.P2
ranked list of candidates qualified for B. Arch course, she was
assigned rank No.78. In pursuance to Ext.P1 prospectus, as per
Ext.P4, petitioner exercised her options to 5 colleges, Viz.
Thiruvananthapuram Engineering College, T.K.M. Engineering
College, Trissur Engineering College, MES Engineering College and
Devaki Ammals Guruvayurappan College of Architecture. On the
WPC.No.23716 /2010
:2 :
basis of her ranking in Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3
allotment memo, wherein petitioner was alloted to MES College of
Engineering, Kuttipuram, the 4th college opted by the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the allotment,
though she joined the said College, by Ext.P5 her option was
altered retaining the higher options, viz. Thiruvananthapuram
Engineering College, T.K.M. Engineering College and Trissur
Engineering College. However, respondents refused to allot the
petitioner despite the availability of vacant seats in these colleges.
This was on the strength of Annexure R2(a), GO(MS).
No.110/2010/Higher Education dt.3.6.2010. Petitioner contends
that in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P1 prospectus, even
if a candidate is alloted to a college opted by her, the candidate is
entitled to have the higher options retained and allotted to such of
those colleges, depending upon the ranking and availability of
seats in those colleges. It is stated that the contrary stand taken by
the respondents relying on Annexure-R2(a) and the note
incorporated in Ext.P4 is therefore illegal.
4. The alternate contention raised by the petitioner is that,
going by the statement filed and the contents of Annexure-R2(a),
WPC.No.23716 /2010
:3 :
which has been issued pursuant to the agreement entered into
between the Government of Kerala and the 60 Private Self Financing
Engineering Colleges,this Government Order can apply only in
respect of admissions in the 60 Private Self Financing Engineering
Colleges. Petitioner submits that since her higher options are in
respect of Government Engineering Colleges and a Government
Aided Engineering College, Ext.R2(a) or the note in Ext.P4, are of no
relevance.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader
submits that clause 1.6 of the prospectus provided that allotment of
seats from the State Rank Lists for all courses in self-financing
colleges will be made in accordance with the orders of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, High Court of Kerala or orders of the Govt.
of Kerala/Govt. of India/as per the law in existence at the time of
Centralized Allotment Process. It is stated that in view of the
agreement that Government of Kerala had entered into with the
Association formed by the managements of 60 Self Financing
Colleges, Government of Kerala had issued Annexure-R2(a) order
dated 3.6.2010 and that clause 7, 8 and 9 thereof provided that
candidates desiring allotment/admission to any of the 60 Private
WPC.No.23716 /2010
:4 :
Self Financing Engineering Colleges can seek only up to 4th
allotment and that candidates who got allotment to any of those
colleges in the 4th allotment, will not be eligible for further
allotment and that their existing higher options will be treated as
invalid. It is further stated that in addition to Annexure R2(a), the 2nd
respondent had also issued Ext.P4 containing a note that, in respect
of those allotted to Private Self Financing Engineering Colleges in
the 4th allotment there will be no further allotment. Learned
Government Pleader therefore contended that in the light of clause
1.6 of the prospectus read with Annexure-R2(a) and the note in
Ext.P4, the higher options exercised by the petitioner got
automatically cancelled when the petitioner was allotted to the MES
College. It is therefore contended that the claim of the petitioner for
further allotment to the colleges opted by her as seen from Ext.P5 is
unsustainable. Government Pleader further contended that in the
absence of any challenge either to Ext.P4 or to Annexure-R2(a)
order, the petitioner cannot seek any relief in this writ petition.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides.
7. Ext.P1 prospectus was issued by the Government of Kerala
and the conditions of the prospectus govern the admission to the
WPC.No.23716 /2010
:5 :
professional courses, 2010. Clause 11 of the prospectus provides
for the Centralized Allotment Process and Online Submission of
Options. Among the various provisions, clause 11.4.2 provides for
registering options, 11.4.5 provides for registering of options in
respect of candidates included in different ranked lists. Claus 11.5
provides for the procedure for registering options and 11.5.6
provides for registering of options and saving/revising the options
registered. Clause 11.5.9 provides for rearranging option priority.
Clause 11.6.4 provides for cancellation of options/alteration of
priority of options after each allotment. A reading of these clauses
in its totality shows that based on the options exercised by the
candidates, even if one is alloted to a particular college, the
candidate is entitled to retain higher options and to get allotted to
those colleges, depending upon the ranking and availability of
seats. Therefore, under the prospectus, while the candidates have
such a right, Government of Kerala issued Annexure-R2(a) order. A
reading of this order shows that this order was issued on the
strength of clause 1.6 of the prospectus, which reads as under.
WPC.No.23716 /2010
:6 :
“Allotment of seats from the State Rank Lists for all courses
in Self-financing colleges will be made in accordance with the
orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India/ Hon’ble High
Court of Kerala or orders of the Govt. of Kerala/Govt. of
India/as per the law in existence at the time of Centralized
Allotment Process(CAP) and will be notified separately.”
8. This clause, as is evident from the clause itself, applies
only in respect of allotment to Self Financing Colleges and can have
no impact in so far as allotment to Government Colleges or aided
colleges. Considering t the fact that Annexure R2(a) order has been
issued on the strength of clause 1.6 of the prospectus, the
applicability of clauses 7,8 and 9 of the order, which are now relied
on against the petitioner, has to be confined only to self Financing
Colleges. If that be so, these clauses can have application only in
respect of allotment to Self Financing Colleges and not to
Government Colleges or Aided Colleges. Therefore, clause 8
providing that candidates who got allotment to any of the Self
Financing Engineering Colleges in the 4th allotment, will not be
eligible for further allotment, only means that ineligibility for
further allotment is only so far as Self Financing Colleges are
concerned and not Government Colleges and Aided Colleges. Since
higher options exercised by the petitioner, as per Ext.P5, are only in
WPC.No.23716 /2010
:7 :
respect of Government Colleges and aided colleges, Annexure-R2
(a) cannot stand in the way of petitioner against seeking admission
to those colleges.
9. Similar is the case of Ext.P4 order, the note of which is
relied on against the petitioner. A literal translation of the note
mentioned in Ext.P4 shows that the further allotment mentioned
therein is only in respect of Self Financing Engineering Colleges. If
that be so, necessarily the plea of the petitioner that Ext.R2(a) or
Ext.P4 cannot stand in the way of the petitioner in claiming
admission to the colleges of her higher option, mentioned in Ext.P5
has to be upheld. If that be so, the refusal of the respondents to
consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment to
Thiruvananthapuram Engineering College, T.K.M. Engineering
College and Trissur Engineering College cannot be accepted,
provided there are vacant seats available in for B. Arch course. In
this view of the matter, there is no substance in the contention that
in the absence of challenge against Ext.P4 and Annexure R2(a),
petitioner is eligible for the relief sought for.
Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd
respondent to consider the petitioner for allotment to B. Arch.
WPC.No.23716 /2010
:8 :
course to the colleges mentioned in Ext.P5 for the next allotment.
This shall be done as expeditiously as possible.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/