IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27844 of 2011(E) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- VIVEK VIJAYAN, AGED 23 YRS, S/O VIJAYAN, VINAYAM, THOTTAKKARA P.O, OTTAPPALAM-2, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.A.CHERIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, COLLEGEGATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001. 3. THE SECRETARY (L.B.S), INSTITUTES OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL N.S.S. TRAINING COLLAGE, OTTAPPALAM.P.O., PIN- 679 101. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE, R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SRI.LEO GEORGE,S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).NO.27844/2011-E: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO BED. DEGREE COURSES IN KERALA FOR 2011-2012. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ANNEXURE '4' OF EXHIBIT P1 PROSPECTUS. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTIONS AND PRISCRIPTIONS FOR SPECIAL RESERVATION CATEGORIES CONTAINED IN CLAUSE 4.2.1 OF THE PROSPECTUS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).27844/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner was an applicant for the B.Ed Degree Course (Physical Science) in the year 2011. He has been allotted in a College at Kottayam. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Ottappalam. There is a College near to his house where seat under the sports quota is available and the seat available is in B.Ed (English). As a result of the allotment thus made by the third respondent, petitioner is now compelled to join the College at Kottayam. It is in these background, the writ petition has been filed contending that advance reservation of seats under sports quota for different subjects has been made to Colleges and that too in an unscientific manner causing prejudice to the students. According to the petitioner, sports quota seats alone were allotted prior to the publication of the prospectus and that too without taking note of the options and convenience of the students. On these grounds, petitioner wants an order to accommodate him in the fourth respondents' College which is near to his residence. 2. Since the third respondent is the authority which makes W.P.(C).27844/11 2 allotment, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instructions. The Standing Counsel on instructions, submits that there are 21 Colleges in the State and that in each of these Colleges, there are one seat each under the sports quota. It is also submitted that the subjects allotted to each of these Colleges is rotated every year under the orders of the Government and such rotation is made on the decision by the Committee by name 'Revamping Committee' established by the Government. It is stated that such rotation is made prior to the the publication of the prospectus. It is in that manner this year also seats were allotted and that the petitioner who had applied for B.Ed (Physical Science), was allotted to a College at Kottayam where B.Ed in that subject was available. 3. From the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, it is evident that the subject wise allotment for B.Ed seats under the sports quota, is made by the 'Revamping Committee' appointed for that purpose. This Committee makes allotment every year, taking into account various aspects. If that be so, this Court will not be justified in W.P.(C).27844/11 3 sitting in judgment over the decision taken by the experts. That apart, petitioner having applied for B.Ed (Physical Science), knowing that, seat available for that subject was at Kottayam, cannot now be permitted to challenge the allotments made. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge