IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 29066 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- S.SANKARANKUTTY, 'RESHMI', ROYAL LANE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI - 682 020. BY MR.ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADVS. MR. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, MR. DIJO SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CUSAT), REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, KOCHI – 682 022 2. THE PRINCIPAL, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, KOCHI – 682022 3. S.S. SREERAJ, M.TECH (PT) MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, CUSAT, KOCHI – 682 022. 4. NIRMALA TWINCY T.F., M.TECH (PT) MECHANICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS, SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, CUSAT, KOCHI – 682 022. R1 & R2 BY MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON 02/12/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 29066 of 2009 - C ---------------------------------------- Dated 2nd December, 2009 Judgment The petitioner is a graduate in Engineering. He was awarded the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Engineering by the University of Calicut in the year 1978. After graduating in Engineering, he worked in Tata Engineering and M/s.T.V.Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Limited for a total period of about 26 years. He thereafter joined the SCMS School of Engineering and Technology as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering. 2. While the petitioner was thus working as Lecturer in SCMS School of Engineering and Technology, the Cochin University of Science and Technology, hereinafter referred to as 'the University' for short, invited applications from eligible candidates for admission to various academic programmes for the year 2009-2010 including M.Tech. (Part-time) programme in Civil, Chemical and Mechanical Engineering. The last date W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 2 for submission of applications was 4.4.2009. Since the petitioner's application was in order, the original of Ext.P5 hall ticket was issued to him to appear for the Departmental Admission Test held on 18.7.2009. Along with Ext.P5 hall ticket, Ext.P6 memo was also issued calling upon the petitioner to be present for the admission test along with attested copies of certificates to prove his name, age, community, qualifications and experience. The petitioner appeared for the admission test along with attested copies of the relevant documents including the experience certificates copies of which are Exts.P2 and P3 respectively. After the admission test was conducted, a rank list was also published in which the petitioner was assigned rank No.8. Thereafter, Ext.P8 memo dated 14.9.2009 was issued to the petitioner and other candidates calling upon them to report at 9.30 a.m. on 9.10.2009 in the office of the Principal, School of Engineering, Cochin University of Science and Technology. By Ext.P8 memo, the petitioner was called upon to produce inter alia the original of the experience certificate already submitted at the W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 3 time of departmental admission test. In Ext.P8, inter alia, it was stated that failure to report at the appointed time and submission of documents mentioned therein except the transfer certificate and the no objection certificate at the time of admission itself would result in forfeiture of the chance of admission. 3. The petitioner reported in the office of the Principal of School of Engineering before the stipulated time. The petitioner had not however brought with him the original of the experience certificate already submitted at the time of the admission test. He was therefore not given admission. It is stated that the original of the experience certificate produced at the time of the departmental admission test was deposited with the employer and that on noticing that the original thereof had not been brought, though he requested the authorities to give him half an hour's time, the said request was not granted and he was denied admission. It is stated that the petitioner thereafter met the Registrar of the University and submitted Ext.P9 letter at 1.30 p.m. on 9.10.2009 requesting for W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 4 admission to the M.Tech. degree programme. The petitioner thereafter submitted Ext.P10 representation to the Principal of the School of Engineering pointing out the above facts and requested for admission to the M.Tech. degree course. This writ petition was thereafter filed on 14.10.2009 seeking a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner for the M.Tech. (Part-time) degree course in Mechanical Engineering. The petitioner also seeks incidental and allied reliefs. 4. The petitioner contends that the denial of an opportunity to him to produce the original of the experience certificate, a copy of which had already been produced at the time of departmental admission test is arbitrary and illegal. He submits that he was permitted to appear for the departmental admission test on being satisfied that he was eligible to appear for the examination and that as the attested copy of the experience certificate had already been produced on the day the departmental admission test was held, the official respondents ought to have given him time to produce the originals thereof which were in the custody of the employer at W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 5 Muttom near Aluva. 5. Respondents 1 to 2 have filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that as the petitioner did not bring the original of the experience certificates at the time of admission, he forfeited his chance of admission. It is contended that ten marks were awarded based on the experience claimed by the petitioner and that as the original of experience certificate was not made available to substantiate his claim for the award of ten marks for experience, they were not in a position to verify whether the petitioner was eligible for admission based on the marks including the marks awarded for experience. It is also contended that on the terms of Ext.P8 memo, the candidate should produce all the documents mentioned therein except the transfer certificate and no objection certificate at the time of admission itself. The respondents also contend that by Ext.P8 production of essential certificates alone was insisted and that if the petitioner's request had been granted it would have resulted in injustice to the candidates ranked below the petitioner who had reported with all the relevant documents as W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 6 directed in Ext.P8. The respondents further state that Sri. Jose Sheril D'Cotha, rank No.7 in Ext.P7 rank list who is working in the very same institution as the petitioner had produced all the certificates stipulated in Ext.P8 on 9.10.2009 itself and that he was given admission. The counter affidavit proceeds to stated that all the 15 seats for the M.Tech. degree course in Mechanical Engineering have been filled up, that the classes commenced on 19.10.2009 and that there is no vacant seat against which the petitioner can be given admission. 6. I heard Sri.Abraham Vakkanal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillai, the learned standing counsel appearing for the University. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. By Ext.P8 memo which the petitioner received in time, the petitioner was directed to report at 9.30 a.m. on 9.10.2009 in the office of the Principal, School of Engineering, Cochin University of Science and Technology. By Ext.P8, the petitioner was directed to report along with the originals of various documents including the W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 7 experience certificate, a copy of which had already been submitted at the time of the departmental admission test. In Ext.P8, it was inter alia stipulated that failure to report at the appointed time and failure to submit the documents mentioned therein except the transfer certificate and the no objection certificate at the time of admission would result in forfeiture of the chance of admission. Though the petitioner reported at 9.30 a.m., he did not have with him the original of the experience certificate submitted at the time of the departmental admission test. His turn for admission arose at 11.30 a.m. Since he did not have the original of the experience certificate, he was not given admission. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that he was awarded marks for experience also. He does not also dispute the fact that at the time of the departmental admission test, only a photostat copy of the experience certificate was produced. The petitioner has not been able to establish that before he was permitted to participate in the departmental admission test, the original of the experience certificate was compared W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 8 with the photostat copy produced by him. In my opinion, as the eligibility of the petitioner for admission to the M.Tech. (Part-time) degree course depends on the marks awarded in the examination and also for experience, it was necessary for him to produce the original of the experience certificate a copy of which had already been submitted at the time of the departmental admission test. The stipulation that the original of the experience certificate already produced at the time of departmental admission test should be produced, is one intended to ensure that a different experience certificate is not produced at the time of admission. Though the petitioner contends that the wordings of Ext.P8 created a confusion in his mind as regards the production of the original of the experience certificate, on a plain reading of Ext.P8, I am not able to subscribe to the petitioner's contention that the contents of Ext.P8 are in any way misleading. The petitioner who is working as Lecturer in an Engineering College cannot in my opinion plead that the stipulation in Ext.P8 that the original of the experience certificate that had been produced at W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 9 the time of the departmental admission test should be produced at the time of admission was misleading. The petitioner alone can be blamed for not producing the original of the experience certificate. Further, the consequences of not producing the original of the experience certificate are set out in Ext.P8 itself. The petitioner's colleague who is working in the very same institution who is ranked immediately above the petitioner had produced the original of the experience certificate. Therefore, in my opinion, the respondents cannot be blamed for not giving admission to the petitioner when his turn for admission arose on 9.10.2009. The petitioner alone can be held liable for the non-production of the original of the experience certificate. As rightly pointed out by the respondents, any concession extended to the petitioner would have resulted in injustice to candidates who had complied with the stipulations in Ext.P8 and had reported in time along with the originals of the various documents referred to in Ext.P8. I therefore find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner that the official respondents ought to have given him W.P.(C) No.29066/2009 10 time to collect the original of the experience certificate from the employer and produce it before the Principal of the School of Engineering. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa