IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29710 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- HASHMINA K., D/O.ABDUL AZEEZ P., P.V.A.HOUSE, IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE, ANJARAKANDY, ANJARAKANDY P.O., KANNUR-670612, REP. BY THE MANAGING TRUSTEE. 3. SHABEERA E.K., DARUNNAJATH HOUSE, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM-673 636. 4. RIZWANA A.A., ARAKKAL HOUSE, ARAKKAL LANE, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683101. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R3 SRI.PRASANTH M.P FOR R3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN SRI.MOHAMMED MUSTAQUE, SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29710/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: THE APPLICATION DT 21.12.2009 SHOWING THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE INCOME CERTIFICATE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO.2431/2010/H&FWED DT 19.6.2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE CANDIDATE FOR CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF THE 30% QUOTA OUT OF the 50% SEATS WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29710 OF 2010 (K) ===================== Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for 1st respondent and respective counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4. 2. The case of the petitioner is that in the 15 seats reserved for the students of Muslim Community, who are residents of Kannur District vide Clause 3.2 of Ext.P2 Prospectus, although the petitioner had claimed and was entitled to be admitted to MBBS in the 2nd respondent College, ignoring her aforesaid claim, respondents 3 and 4 were granted admission. It is contended that respondents 3 and 4 are residents of Malappuram and Ernakulam Districts and therefore were ineligible to be considered against the 15 seats available vide Clause 3.2 of the prospectus. 3. In so far as the 4th respondent is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel, as also the learned Government Pleader that the 4th respondent was not granted admission in the 2nd respondent College. Therefore, the 4th respondent is an WPC No. 29710/10 :2 : unnecessary party to this controversy. 4. Now the controversy is between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Learned Government Pleader who has obtained instructions in the matter submits that the petitioner's Rank No in the Common Entrance Test was 3919 whereas the rank No. of the 3rd respondent was 2773. It is also stated that in the 5th phase of allotment, the 23rd option exercised by the 3rd respondent was also for BDS. It is stated that despite the above, in the allotment process, a mistake has occurred, as a result of which, the petitioner who ought to have been accommodated in the MBBS was alloted a seat in the BDS and the 3rd respondent, who ought to have been alloted BDS, was allotted MBBS. It is also submitted that both were alloted to 2nd respondent College itself. It is stated that this mistake was noticed only when revised community certificates were produced by petitioner as also the 3rd respondent. The aforesaid factual positions are not in dispute. It is therefore evident that an inadvertent mistake has happened at the office of the 1st respondent and that the said mistake can be corrected by reallotting the petitioner to MBBS and the 3rd respondent to BDS. WPC No. 29710/10 :3 : 5. Now that the mistake can be corrected as above, it is directed that the 1st respondent shall issue orders allotting the petitioner to a MBBS seat in the 2nd respondent College now alloted to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent to BDS in the 2nd respondent College itself. This shall be done today itself, since 30th September, 2010 is the last date specified by the Apex Court. 6. Learned Government Pleader will communicate this judgment to the 1st respondent, who shall issue orders immediately and on receipt thereof, needful shall be done by the 2nd respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp