IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 28194 of 2007(F)
1. THOMAS BENOY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNIVERSITY OF COCHIN,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR,
3. DEPARTMENT OF CELOS,
For Petitioner :SRI.PAULSON THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSIT
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :16/10/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.28194 OF 2007-F
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 16th October, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the
respondents to admit the petitioner to the First MSc
Photonics (Integrated Course) against any one of the
general category seats remaining vacant. Petitioner also
seeks a declaration that the 3 vacancies occurred due to
discontinuation of course by reserved category candidates
is available for general candidates.
2. After passing Plus Two CBSE examination with 85%
mnarks, petitioner had applied for Common Admission Test
2007 for admission to Engineering Courses and MSc Photonics
(Integrated Course), conducted by the 1st Respondent
University and appeared for the Test. Petitioner’s Rank
number for B.Tech in the general quota was 5678 and that of
Photonics, was 492. The 1st phase of counselling was over
on 20.07.2007 when candidates having Rank upto 5000 were
called. It is his contention that although for MSc
Photonics a separate rank list was published, that was not
made use of for counselling. Petitioner submits that
unlike in the case of the first phase of counselling, in
the 2nd phase of counselling, candidates were not given
individual intimation and that the schedule was not
W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007 2
announced during the initial phase of allotment. According
to him on account of the lapses of the 1st respondent he had
no opportunity to know about the 2nd phase of counselling
which was conducted on 08.08.2007, when candidates having
rank Nos.5001 to 24999 were considered. It is submitted
that several candidates having much lower rank than the
petitioner were granted admission. It is further contended
that even as of now, there are three vacancies and that in
view of the ranking that he has secured, he is entitled to
be accommodated against anyone of those three vacancies.
3. Petitioner further submits that soon after the 1st
phase of counselling, on reaslising that there is no chance
of getting admission, he had joined MEPCO SHCHELNK
Engineering College, Sivakasi and that subsequently he got
Ext.P7 transfer certificate and joined College of
Engineering, Poonjar. Still later, he got transfer
certificate from this College also and joined Toc H
Institute of Science and Technology. It is stated that in
anticipation of getting admission to MSc Photonics in the
1st respondent University, he obtained Ext.P4 Transfer
Certificate from Toc H Institute of Science and Technology,
and is presently awaiting admission. It is submitted that
since he has lost all his avenues, on equitable grounds, he
should be directed to be accommodated by the 1st respondent
in any one of the vacant seats now available.
4. The University on the other hand will contend
that admissions were granted from the common rank list
W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007 3
prepared for B. Tech and MSc Photonics and that among the
candidates included in the common rank list, those who have
opted for MSc Photonics were called for counselling.
According to the University the separate ranking was
maintained only for the information of the candidates of
their relative position in the ranking.
5. In so far as the complaint of the petitioner that
individual notice should have been given, the university
submits that the candidates had to download their call
letters from the website and in the Key Informations
notified in the website it was specifically stated that
counselling schedule / admission procedure/ list of
candidates called for counselling and other details will be
published only on the official website of the University
and that no individual call letter will be sent. Ext.R1(a)
is the key information notified by the 1st respondent.
6. In so far as the counselling schedule is
concerned, the University would contend that it was
published in the website sufficiently early and a press
release was also issued, which was published in almost all
leading news dailies. Exts.R1(b) & (c) are the news reports
published in Malayala Manorama and Indian Express regarding
the 2nd phase of counselling. Ext.R1(d) is the counselling
schedule for the 2nd phase of counselling published in the
website of the University. According to the 1st respondent
in the 2nd phase of counselling which was over by
20.07.2007, a large number of students had turned up for
W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007 4
admission. It is submitted that the candidates for called
for purely according to their merit and that the vacancy
position was also published in the website and also
displayed in a big LCD Screen installed at the Counselling
Centre so that the students could also ascertain the
vacancy position.
7. It is submitted that despite all this the
petitioner did not report for the 2nd phase of counselling
and admissions were closed on 20.07.2007 and this writ
petition was filed only on 20.09.2007. It is also
submitted that the total number of seats were 20, out of
which 13 are earmarked for General Category and the balance
for Reserved Category. According to the University
candidates who have secured rank below the petitioner have
secured admission and that as on date there is one vacancy
in the general category and the remaining are vacancies
earmarked for reserved category for which there is a
waiting list. The 1st respondent has also produced Ext.R1(e)
letter from the Director stating that since more than two
months are over since starting of the Semester, students
shall not be admitted to MSc Photonics even if some seats
have gone vacant.
8. The main argument that was raised by the counsel
for the writ petitioner is that the university ought to
have given individual notice of the 2nd phase of counselling
and in the absence of it, the failure of the petitioner to
report for admission, cannot cause any prejudice to him.
W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007 5
It is also his contention that irrespective of all the
controversies, the petitioner is liable to be admitted in
one of the vacancies at least on equitable grounds.
9. This contention is opposed by the university
vehemently. According to them they have complied with all
the requirement and cannot be faulted for the petitioners
failure to report for the 2nd phase of counselling. It is
also submitted that even if there are vacancies, since
classes have already started, fresh admission cannot be
granted. On these pleadings, the question that arises for
consideration whether the University was bound to give
individual notice to the candidates for the 2nd phase of
counselling, which commenced on 8th August 2007.
10. The procedure for admission including the manner
in which the candidates are to be notified of the schedule
of counselling are matters which are governed by the
information notified by the university in its website.
Ext.R1(a) itself makes it clear that the counselling
schedule/ admission procedure/ list of candidates called
for counselling and other details will be published only on
the official website of the University and no individual
call letter will be sent. The candidates also could seek
assistance/ advice from the office of the 2nd Respondent.
11. In addition to this, University has published
counselling schedule through newspapers and from Exts.R1(b)
&(c) it is evident that on 01.08.2007 the newspapers did
carry a notification regarding the 2nd phase of counselling.
W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007 6
The 2nd phase of counselling was also published in the
website, as is evident from Ext.R1(d) web page produced by
the University. Petitioner has not placed anything on
record to indicate that the University was obliged to give
individual notice to candidates. Thus, the University had
given notifications in terms of Ext.R1(a) and had no
obligation to give individual notice to candidates. If for
reasons of his own, a candidate has failed to appear for
the 2nd phase of counselling, the University cannot be
faulted. Therefore, the petitioner’s contention that the
University committed an illegality in not giving individual
notice to candidates like the petitioner is only to be
rejected.
12. The other contention that is raised is that there
are still vacancies and that the petitioner should be
accommodated in any one of them. University does not
dispute the availability of vacancies. It is submited that
there is only one vacancy in the general category and that
the remaining are in the earmarked for candidates belonging
to reserved categories for which a wait list is maintained.
University submits that the classes have started more than
two months ago and that in view of this, it has been
decided not to grant admission to any fresh student. For
this purpose the university is relying on Ext.R1(e) order
of the 2nd respondent. If the University has therefore
taken a policy decision not to grant any further admission,
irrespective of availability of the vacancies, I see
W.P.(C) No.28194 of 2007 7
nothing wrong with such a decision. It may be that the
University has taken such a decision, on account of the
fact that delayed admission can only cause prejudice to the
students’ community. In any case that decision of the
University is not under challenge. Therefore, there is no
necessity to consider the correctness of the contention of
the petitioner that the reserved vacancies will revert to
the general candidates or that the petitioner should be
accommodated against anyone of the vacancies now available.
Even if petitioner is right in his submission, he cannot be
granted any relief as the University has decided not to
grant any further admission. Therefore, the submission
that the petitioner is liable to be admitted to any one of
the vacancies also lacks merits.
13. Petitioner has sought admission on equitable
grounds as well. As already stated so far petitioner had
joined three engineering colleges from where he has
obtained Exts.P4, P7 & P8 Transfer Certificates and is
presently stated to be not studying in any college. While,
I have my sympathies with the petitioner, in view of the
position as above, I am not in a position to grant any
relief to him.
14. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
pr/jan.