Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ.
State Of Kerala And Anr - Petitioners
Versus
Garry Vino George And Ors. – Respondents
WA No.1699 of 2025, WA No.1700 of 2025, WA No.1701 of 2025, WA No.1702 of 2025, WP(C) NO.25230 of 2025
Decided On : 10-07-2025
(A) Kerala High Court Act, 1958 - Section 5(i) - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Amendment to Prospectus-2025 regarding standardization formula for Engineering entrance - The State's change to the standardization formula just hours before the publication of results deemed arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, disrupting fairness in the admissions process. (Paras 5 , 32 , 47 )
(B) The court found that the introduction of a new standardization formula after the exam is akin to changing the rules of the game mid-process, contrary to established legal principles. The learned Single Judge's ruling was upheld as controlling precedent. (Paras 9 , 11 , 44 )
Facts of the case:
Applicants completed the CBSE 12th Standard; they challenged G.O.(Ms.)No.470/2025/HEDN regarding amendments made one hour before results were published.
Findings of Court:
The court asserted that the last-minute modifications to the prospectus undermined established procedures and fairness, leading to unjust disparities among applicants.
Issues: The court addressed whether the Government could alter the standardization formula mid-admissions process and its conformity with the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld that amendments post-examination compromise fairness and transparency, echoing previous rulings that assert consistency in procedural regulations.
Result: Writ appeals dismissed; direction to publish rank list as per the original Prospectus-2025.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge against modification of prospectus (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. counter affidavit filed by the commissioner (Para 4) |
| 3. trial judge's observations on arbitrary changes (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments by advocate general on the government's powers (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. arguments against government's decision (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. procedure for admissions and standardization (Para 13 , 14 , 19) |
| 7. clause interpretations in prospectus (Para 15 , 16) |
| 8. modifications approved by expert committee (Para 17 , 18) |
| 9. discussions on standardization committee's recommendations (Para 26 , 29) |
| 10. legal considerations on unilateral changes (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 11. further arguments on rules changes (Para 33 , 34) |
| 12. previous case laws on amendments (Para 35) |
| 13. implications of changes on equality rights (Para 36 , 37) |
| 14. comparative case analysis on admissions (Para 38 , 39) |
| 15. differentiations in eligibility criteria (Para 40 , 41) |
| 16. final considerations on constitutionality (Para 43) |
| 17. distinction between changes and retroactive amendments (Para 44 , 45) |
| 18. conclusion on the legality of actions (Para 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
W.A.Nos.1699, 1700, 1701 and 1702 of 2025 filed by the State of Kerala and others under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 arise out of a common judgment dated 09.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.24976, 24951, 25180 and 24767 of 2025. The said writ petitions were filed by the respondent(s) in W.A.Nos.1699, 1700 and 1701 of 2025 and respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.No.1702 of 2025. Respondents 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1702 of 2025 are additional respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025.
2. The petitioners in those writ petitions are students who have completed 12th Standard education from the CBSE stream of syllabus. For pursuing professional degree courses in Engineering, they submitted online applications in response to the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses- 2025 (for brevity, ‘Prospectus-2025’) issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala (for brevity, ‘CEE, Kerala’). They appeared for the entrance examination KEAM-2025 for Engineering courses, held from 22.04.2025 to 30.04.2025. Additional respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025, who are respondents 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1702 of 2025, are students who have completed 12th Standard education in Kerala Higher Secondary stream.
3. The common challenge in the writ petitions was against G.O.(Ms.)No.470/2025/HEDN dated 01.07.2025 issued by the State of Kerala, whereby the standardization formula in the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses- 2025 was changed by the State. The said order is one issued invoking the provisions under Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus-2025, which was approved by the Government vide G.O.(Ms.)No.97/ 2025/HEDN dated 19.02.2025, on the ground that there exists a disparity while standardising the marks of those students who completed 12th Standard education in Kerala Higher Secondary stream and other streams, including CBSE. Other consequential reliefs were also sought for in the writ petitions.
4. In W.P.(C)No.24951 of 2025, the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala, has filed a counter affidavit dated 08.07.2025, opposing the reliefs sought for, producing therewith Ext.R2(a) calculation statement of standardised marks in respect of the writ petitioners, who are CBSE students and those candidates with identical marks in the Kerala Higher Secondary stream, using the earlier method and new method of standardization. In W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025 also, the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has filed a counter affidavit dated 07.07.2025.
5. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025, disposed of the writ petitions subject to the observations and directions contained therein. The learned Single Judge found that after the conduct of the entrance examination, the Go
Amendments to admission criteria after examination undermine transparency and fairness, constituting a violation of constitutional principles.
The court upheld that changing admission criteria post-examination is arbitrary and violates fairness principles, enforcing that established rules must be maintained throughout the admission process.
The court ruled that arbitrary changes to examination criteria post-exams undermine fairness, violating principles of administrative justice.
State governments possess authority to prescribe minimum admission standards within their jurisdiction, emphasizing merit while accommodating special categories.
Minimum qualifying marks must be obtained in each subject rather than an aggregate score; changes to recruitment criteria cannot be made after the process has commenced.
Weightage for medical admissions based on rural service is permissible only for candidates serving in difficult rural areas, as established by statutory provisions and prior judgments.
Point of Law : Court also has a corresponding duty to examine what is the nature of the change sought to be brought and simply, by the jargon "Rules of the game cannot be changed", this Court cannot ....
The impugned note was quashed as it was found to be contrary to the Rules of 2006, irrational, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
