Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS versus M.R.YADHUN, PANACKAL HOUSE, CHANTHAVILA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS v. M.R.YADHUN, PANACKAL HOUSE, CHANTHAVILA - WA No. 810 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 7366 (10 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 810 of 2007()

1. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. M.R.YADHUN, PANACKAL HOUSE, CHANTHAVILA,
... Respondent

2. THE PRINCIPAL, MANNAM AYURVEDIC

3. RISHA T.T., D/O SIDHEEQUE T.T,

For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

For Respondent :SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

Dated :10/04/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ.

W.A.(C)No.810 OF 2007 Dated 10th April, 2007

JUDGMENT

Koshy,J

. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.4450 of 2007. Earlier, the petitioner (first respondent herein) filed W.P.(C)No.34648 of 2006 and a learned Single Judge of this court, by Ext.P3 judgment, disposed of the above writ petition, directing the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (appellant herein) to make a last allotment for the vacancy in the college of the second respondent within a week and, if no one above the petitioner in rank opts for it, then the college should admit the petitioner. No rank holders even in representative capacity was made as a party to the writ petition. Admission sought for is for B.A.M.S course. There are 25 seats in Government quota (merit quota) in the college of the second respondent. There were two vacancies in the merit quota. One vacancy was already filled up by a higher meritorious candidate, after Ext.P3 judgment, and she joined on 7.2.2007. Thereafter, one student (third respondent) joined Ayurveda College, Kottackal. So, now there are two vacancies in the college of the second respondent. The question is whether W.A.810/2007 2 petitioner is entitled to get admission in that college, or not. According to the petitioner, in view of the direction in W.P.(C)No.34648 of 2006, he is entitled to get admission.

2. Rank of the petitioner in the Entrance Examination was 45483. He secured only 53.18 marks out of 960 marks. That means only 5.53% marks in the Entrance Examination. The rank of the last candidate who got admission in the college was 4852 and he secured 500.56 marks out of 960 marks (52.145%). Appellant states that claim of 204 meritorious candidates will be overtaken if the petitioner is given admission. It is also submitted that by the same process, by filing W.P.(C)No.32135 of 2005, petitioner's brother got admission in the same college, in the merit quota behind the back of other meritorious rank holders, even though his ranking was also very low. It is the case of the petitioner that no other meritorious candidate has opted for this college. So, we have directed the Government to give at least names of three meritorious candidates who secured more marks and who opted to this college. It is submitted that three persons have opted for this college and expressed willingness to join the course. They are as follows: W.A.810/2007 3 Sl. Name Rank No. 1 Tesna Josephh 7112 2 Sapna C. Varghese 7369 3 Hima.S 7520 We are of the view that the above three candidates, who opted for this college, are more entitled to get merit seat, as the petitioner's rank was only 45483, whereas the rank of the above three candidates were below 8000. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that direction of the learned Single Judge, giving admission to the petitioner has to be set aside and we do so. It is true that there were some lapses on the part of the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, but, that cannot be made as a ground for denying admission to the meritorious students in the State quota. Filing writ petition, without making the ranked persons, even in a representative capacity, as parties, and getting admission will amount to admission by backdoor entry. We are of the opinion that meritorious candidates should get admission.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the second respondent that even though the petitioner has joined on 14.2.2007, he was not interviewed and his papers were not verified. But, on the basis of the impugned judgment, he W.A.810/2007 4 was allowed to sit in the class and he paid the fees to the office. Amount of fees collected should be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. It is further submitted by the counsel for the second respondent that classes were started in November, 2006. Even though the petitioner, on the basis of the impugned judgment, joined only on 14.2.2007, it will be impossible to write the first year examination which is scheduled to be conducted in May, 2007 due to lack of attendance, unless examinations are postponed further to the prejudice of all other students. Therefore, we make it clear that willing meritorious candidates who opted for the college as mentioned above have to be admitted in the college only if they are willing to appear for the first year examination in the next year so that other students already got admission and attending classes from November, 2006 will not suffer. The appeal is allowed. J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

JUDGE

tks


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.