IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 18188 of 2010(W) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ ATHIRA FRANCIS, D/O.V.V.FRANCIS, AGED 18 YEARS, VEMBALLIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPURAM PO, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BYGOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 18188 of 2010 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the issue raised is the validity of the ranked list prepared for admission to MBBS in the sports quota and the allotment of candidates. 2. Ext.P4 is an extract of the prospectus for the year 2010 which provides for special reservation. Ext.P3 is an extract of Clause 5.2.19 of the prospectus which deals with the allotment of candidates in the sports quota. In terms of these provisions of the prospectus, special ranked lists are to be prepared for individual and team events by adopting the total number of seats and multiplying the same by ‘7’ and including all those candidates who have secured ranking within the total number. Once such separate ranked lists are prepared, candidates are to be allotted alternatively to the total five seats which are earmarked for sports quota. 3. Ext.P2 are the ranked lists thus prepared. The petitioner has been included as number 3 in the Team Event ranked list. WPC.18188/2010 : 2 : 4. Petitioner contends that the candidate chosen for allotment to the last seat, the 5th one, should be the one having higher ranking, among those included in ranked lists for individual events and team events. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is against the provisions contained in clause 5.2.19 which says that the seats will be allotted adopting the principle 1:1 and that the allotments will be made alternatively between individual events and team events. If that be so, going by the terms of the prospectus, the 5th seat will naturally go to a candidate included in the individual event ranked list. It is further seen that this system of allotment has already been upheld by this Court in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20646/2009. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner is only to be refused. 5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the ranked lists should be prepared adopting the seats available in the government colleges only for the reason that there is no sports quota seat available in the private colleges. On this basis, it is submitted that the total number of seats in the government colleges being 970, the said figure should be WPC.18188/2010 : 3 : multiplied by ‘7’ and only those candidates who have secured ranking below 6790, should be included in the ranked lists. This again, does not appear to be acceptable for the reason that going by the prospectus, total number of seats is to be adopted as the basis and that figure should be multiplied by ‘7’. Since the terms used in the prospectus is total number of seats, the contention of the learned counsel that total number of seats mentioned should be the seats in the government colleges alone, cannot be accepted. At any rate, having regard to the terms of the prospectus, the interpretation adopted by the respondents is certainly a plausible one, in which event also this Court will not be justified substituting its view to the one adopted by the respondents. 6. Even apart from all these, it is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that the allotment to the seats in the sports quota is already over. If so, none of the candidates thus allotted and whose allotment is likely to be upset if relief is granted in this writ petition, has been impleaded in this writ petition. WPC.18188/2010 : 4 : 7. Further, petitioners have undergone selection process fully knowing the implications for the various provisions of the prospectus. It is thereafter that when the ranked list was published, that they have filed this writ petition. This Court in the judgment in Ajith George Vs. State of Kerala [2006 (3) KLT 743] has already held that such candidates cannot turn around and challenge the selection process and that they are estopped from doing so. For all these reasons, this writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks