IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2010 / 18TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 17579 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.RAJAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAMAN, SADANANDA, KOTTARAKOTH, P.O.PERUMPALLY- 673 586, ENGAPUZHA AMSOM, MALAPPURAM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, REPRESENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILIP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 17579 of 2010 V ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 8th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed by the father of a student who had appeared for the Central Board of Secondary Education examination in March, 2010. The result of the said examination was published on 28-05-2010. As per the Government Orders the applications for Plus One admission through Single Window System for the academic year 2010-2011 were received in the school and 20-05-2010 was fixed as the last date for receiving such applications. According to the petitioner, the said action on the part of the Government would prejudicially affect the prospects of the petitioner's daughter and similarly situated students and it would definitely diminish their chances of getting admission to Plus One course. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to my attention any provision under any statute or any other orders which would compel the Government to wait for the publication of the result of the CBSE examination for the purpose of effecting admissions to the Plus WPC.17579/2010 : 2 : One course under the Single Window System. When faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India guarantees such a protection and, therefore, the action on the part of the Government in closing the first allotment without waiting for the publication of the result is liable to be interfered with. I am afraid I could not uphold the said contention in view of the statement made on behalf of the 3rd respondent pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.15351/2010. The said writ petition was filed in similar circumstances by the parents of some similarly situated students. The relevant portion in the said statement reads thus:- “ Last year also almost 4 lakhs applications were received. Out of these, 95% applications were from State Stream and the remaining 5% were from ICSE, CBSE, etc. This year also 2nd respondent is expecting the same. Any how the students similar to that of the petitioners will get a chance to apply for the supplementary allotment and that too along with the SAY students. During last year 24000 students got admission through the WPC.17579/2010 : 3 : supplementary allotment. Only 2888 students applied through the CBSE stream.” It is thus evident that the closing of the first allotment will not foreclose the chances of the students who pass out in the CBSE examinations and that they will get a chance to apply for the supplementary allotment along with the SAY students. Therefore, it cannot be said that the right to education has been deprived in the case of the daughter of the petitioner and similarly situated students. In the absence of any provision which compel the Government to postpone the admissions till publication of result by the CBSE or such other Boards, I am unable to hold that the action on the part of the respondents is illegal warranting judicial interference. At the same time, I am of the considered view that if the future of a group of students from a particular stream is at stake, the State cannot remain as a mute spectator. In such circumstances, the issue has to be addressed with an urgency by the State. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge