Back
2020 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14777
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.V.ASHA, J
ABHIRAMI PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/25501/2020
SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN, SHRI.PRAVEEN S., SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G, SRI.DIPU JAMES, SHRI.MATHEW K.T., SHRI.GEORGE K.V.
The court established that distinctions in admission processes between self-financing and government colleges are lawful and do not violate constitutional rights.
Headnote:
Education - Admission Process - 2014 KHC 210, 2001 SCC 355 - Court upheld the admission process and classification between self-financing and government colleges, affirming that these distinctions are reasonable and lawful.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Ezhava community member, qualified for an architecture program but claimed wrongful denial of mop-up allotment opportunities after being allocated a lower preference college due to restrictions on self-financing college admissions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the regulations governing college allotments were valid and consistent with prior judgments regarding the classification of students based on their college choices, confirming no infringement of the petitioner’s rights.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was wrongfully denied participation in mop-up allotment and if the restrictions imposed on admission were lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced that classification of students based on their college choices was reasonable and aligned with institutional agreements, upholding government rights in establishing admission policies.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of November 2020 The petitioner appeared in the Entrance Examination conducted by KEAM 2020. She belongs to Hindu Ezhava Community recognized as Socially and Educationally Backward Community. On getting qualified in NATA – 2020 conducted by Council of Architecture with a score of 121.5/200, she was allotted to Mangalam School of Architecture, which is a Self Financing College, as per Ext.P4 Memo, dated 23.10.2020. The complaint of the petitioner is that even though the third respondent issued a notification Ext.P5 on 16.11.2020, calling upon the option of candidates to participate in mop-up allotment, the petitioner was not denied the opportunity. It is stated that she was allotted to a College, which was 10th in her option list. According to her, in case, an opportunity was granted to her, she would have got admission in any of the colleges for which she had given higher options. It is stated that the candidates portal was kept open on 12.11.2020 after 12.00 p.m; but she could not exercise her option and she could not also appear in the mop-
up allotment on account of the restriction imposed on those who joined Self Financing Colleges.
2. As pointed out by Sri. V. Manu, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the issue raised by the petitioner is covered against the petitioner, by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Hanna Thasnim v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 KHC 210] rendered in more or less similar circumstances. The learned Government Pleader relied on the judgment of the Apex Court inArvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and Others [ 2001 KHC 1650 ] also, in support of his contention.
3. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on both sides, it is seen that the issue raised in this writ petition is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Hanna Thasnim's case (supra). In that case, the petitioner therein approached this Court when students lower down in the rank list were given admission in Government College in the mop up allotment, in which petitioner was unable to participate because all her higher options were cancelled on her admission in a self financing college, even in the absence of any notification published in the website regarding the same and her homepage was removed from the portal. The procedure adopted by the respondents was upheld seeing that it was in tune with the provisions in the agreement entered into between the self financing colleges and the Government. The observations in relevant portion of paragraph Nos.30 and 31 of the said judgment read as follows:
“30. xxx Learned Government Pleader contended that the students, who got admitted as per the stipulations in Ext. P2 to Government Colleges in accordance with their merit and option form one class and those who got admitted to self financing colleges on the basis of their merit and option form another class. Their rights and liabilities are distinctly classified in Ext. P2 itself. That classification is vivid and it is perfectly reasonable. Learned Government Pleader contended that it is all the more important to remember that only because of the agreement between the Government and the Management Consortium, students like the petitioner got a broader avenue to study in the desired stream. Reasonableness of classification depends on the objects to be achieved by doing so. Only requirements are that the decision making process should be transparent, fair and reasonable. xxx
31. xxxx In this case, the fact that the agreement executed between the Government and the Management Consortium of self financing dental colleges enured to the benefit of a large number of students will have to be considered. Those students who willingly opted for self financing colleges along with Government Colleges form a distinct class and those who opted for Government Colleges alone form a different class. This classification is expressly discernible from the terms in Ext. P2 itself. Therefore, we do not find any
