IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY &

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1940 WA.No. 2230 of 2018 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 35202/2018 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29.10.2018 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

AAYSHATH NAJILA SCHEMNAD, AGED 31 YEARS D/O DR. R. RAHIM, SEA VIEW HOUSE, HAMEED ALI SCHEMNAD COMPOUND, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KASARGOD 671 121 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.AJOY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMS, FIFTH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

3 THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, BARTON HIIL ROAD, BARTON HILL COLONY, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA 695 037.

4 THE PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682 011.

5 ASWIN DINESH, KAMATTATHIL HOUSE, RAGHAVAN THIRUMALPAD - SM ROAD, V.R.PURAM P.O. CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR 680 772 , NOW 1ST YEAR LLB STUDENT, THREE YEAR COURSE, GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682 011.

ADV. SR.G.P. SRI. MANURAJ K.J.

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The Petitioner in W.P.(C)35202/18 is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.10.2018 of the learned Single Judge. For the sake of convenience, reference to the parties and documents is as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner had obtained admission to the Government Law College, Trivandrum pursuant to the online allotment process that was initiated for admission to the three year LLB Course, 2018 in the Law Colleges within the State. It is the case of the petitioner that she had indicated her first preference as the Government Law College, Ernakulam and the second preference as Government Law College, Trivandrum and in the online allotment process, she was allotted the Government Law College, Trivandrum based on the vacancy position that obtained then. Although there was a provision in the prospectus that enabled candidates to opt for their higher preference in the event of any vacancy arising in the said college of preference, it is not in dispute that during the online admission process there was no vacancy that arose at Government Law College, Ernakulam to accommodate the petitioner. The online admission process, therefore, closed and at the end of it, the petitioner was allotted the Government Law College in Trivandrum. In the Writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that by Ext.P3 notification, which published the guidelines for spot allotment, while a transfer was permitted for students admitted to a Government Law College to join another Law College in the Self Financing Sector or vice versa, a similar facility was not provided for students admitted to a Government Law College so as to allow them to move to another Government Law College, in the event of any vacancy arising in that college. According to the petitioner, the said provision in the guidelines for spot allotment is discriminatory as against those students had obtained allotment to a Government Law College.

3. The learned Single Judge took note of the relevant Clause in Ext.P3 notification and found that, the mere fact that few seats fell vacant during the spot allotment process on account of the release of seats from other quotas could not be a ground to hold that the interdiction in Ext.P3 with regard to the transfer from one Law College to another Law College was unreasonable. While arriving at such a conclusion, the learned Single Judge took note of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and others [2001 KHC 1650] to opine that even under circumstances where a seat becomes vacant after the allotments are complete, and is fi