The court emphasized the need for timely review of EWS applications while considering relevant legal precedents and government orders.

JUDGMENT

The 1^st petitioner seeks admission to the Indian Institute of Management while the 2^nd petitioner seeks admission to the Indian Institute of Technology. Petitioners are siblings, and they claim to fall within the Economically Weaker Section of the society.

2. The 1^st petitioner applied for a certificate as an Economically Weaker Section, which was rejected by Ext.P2 by the 1st respondent. Challenging the said rejection, the 1^st petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal, before the 2^nd respondent, which is pending consideration.

3. The 2^nd petitioner, in the meanwhile applied for obtaining a certificate as an EWS, as per Ext.P4 before the 1^st respondent. The said application is pending consideration.

4. Petitioners claim that their parents are separated and the father had practically abandoned them from 2016, and that his income and assets cannot be counted as theirs, for the purpose of reckoning their eligibility for EWS certificate. The petitioners claim, the benefit of the decision in Meghna Devi v. State of Kerala ( 2025 KHC 2073 ).

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the above-mentioned decision is not applicable since there are other Government orders that govern the field, which was not the subject matter of consideration in Meghna Devi's case.

6. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned contentions, I am of the view that since the appeal filed by the 1st petitioner, as well as the application filed by the 2^nd petitioner, are pending consideration before the respective respondents, the same can be directed to be considered in a time-bound manner.

Hence, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application filed by the 2^nd petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after granting an opportunity of being heard to the 2^nd petitioner.

Similarly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal filed by the 1st petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering the claims the authorities shall bear in mind the relevant Government Orders, as well as the judgment in Meghna Devi's case (supra).

The writ petition is disposed of as above.