IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16858 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONERS ----------------------- 1. BHARATHI KANNAN, S/O.K. BHASKARA, MINOR, AGED 17, REP. BY HIS FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN K. BHASKARAN, S/O. KAMAKSHI GOWDA, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, THEKKEMATTOM, UNION CLUB, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. BHASKARAN.K, S/O. KAMAKSHI GOWDA, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, THEKKEMATOM, UNION CLUB, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, OFFICE OF GHE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, TRIVANDRUM - 01. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.16858 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The 1st petitioner is the son of the 2nd petitioner. The 2nd petitioner was originally a native of the State of Tamil Nadu. He migrated to Kerala in 1980 and since then he has been residing at Kottayam along with his family. The 1st petitioner was born at Kottayam in 1990. He completed his studies from standard I to XII in the Marian Senior Secondary School, Kottayam. The 1st petitioner wrote the Common Entrance Examination for admission to Engineering Colleges in Kerala. He was ranked 354 in the merit list. However, after publication of the merit list, the 1st petitioner realized that in the application submitted by him, he described himself as a 'Non-Keralite Category II' whereas he actually belonged to the category of candidates of Kerala origin. As a result of this mistake in the application form, the 1st petitioner would be denied admission to Government or aided W.P.(c)No.16858/08 2 engineering Colleges. The petitioners therefore seek the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records leading to Exhibit- P-6 and Exhibit P-8; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ direction or order directing the respondents to treat the 1 st petitioner as candidate coming under the category “Keralite” and to admit him to any of the Government or aided Engineering College of his choice according to his rank in the merit list; (iii) to declare that the 1 st petitioner is eligible to be treated as a candidate coming under the category “Keralite” for all purposes as per the prospectus for entrance examination to professional course Kerala 2008 and is eligible for admission to any college or course of his choice according to his rank in the merit list”. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that a reading of the definition of 'Keralite' and Non-keralite in the prospectus would show that the definitions are ambiguous, that a person of the 1st petitioner’s status can be misled by the same and that since it is because of the lack of clarity in the definition given, the 1st petitioner happened to write his status as a 'Non- Keralite' Category II. Therefore the petitioners claim that the 1st petitioner should now be allowed the status as 'Keralite' and his admission considered in accordance with such status. 3. The learned Government Pleader stoutly opposes W.P.(c)No.16858/08 3 the same. He reads out various Clauses of the prospectus in support of his contention that after submitting the application, the candidate cannot be allowed to correct the entries in the application subsequently. He points out that in Clause 1.1, it is specifically stated that the candidates should go through the prospectus carefully and acquaint themselves with all the relevant information relating to the examinations. He points out that under Clause 6.1.1., a Keralite, in order to prove his status, has to produce one of the certificates mentioned therein and that the documents or certificates furnished after the submission of the application will not be entertained under any circumstances, as per Clause 7.8. He also specifically points out that under Clause 7.8 there is a note attracting the attention of the candidates to the decisions of the High Court in Sainulabdin V. State of Kerala [1995(2) KLT 629] and Sini Raj V. Commissioner of Entrance Examinations [1999(3)KLT 773] on the basis of which Clause 7.8 has been incorporated therein. The learned Government Pleader’s contention is that admittedly the first petitioner has shown himself as 'Non-Keralite Category II' in his application. As such, he has not produced any documents required to prove W.P.(c)No.16858/08 4 that he is a 'Keralite'. In view of the specific conditions in the prospectus, the petitioner cannot now be allowed to contend that he should be given the benefit as a 'Keralite' in so far as he is now a 'Keralite'. The learned Government Pleader also refers to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Division Bench decision in Sini Raj's (supra) case as also paragraphs 8 and 11 of the Division Bench decision in Sainulabdin's (supra) case. The learned Government Pleader therefore asserts that the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Since the petitioners’ contention is that the definition of 'Keralite' and 'Non-Keralite' are ambiguous, I will first refer to the definitions in the prospectus. The same appears in Clause 6.1[(i) to (iii)]. The same reads thus: “(i) Keralite-A candidate of Kerala origin will be categorised as 'Keralite'. (ii) Non-Keralite(Category I): A candidate who is not of 'Kerala origin' but who has undergone the qualifying course in Keala, and who is the son/daughter of the following categories of Non-Keralite parents will be categorised as Non-Keralite (Category 1): (a) Employees of the Government of India (b) Defence personnel posted to Kerala. (c) Employees, who are serving the Government W.P.(c)No.16858/08 5 of Kerala, subject to the condition that the employees have served in the State of Kerala or for the State of Kerala, for a minimum period of two years. Non-Keralite(Category I ) candidates will be considered against 'State Merit” seats only for Engineering/Medical and allied courses and will not be eligible for Communal/Special/Persons with Disabilities reservation. (iii) Non-Keralite(Category II): Candidates who do not come under 'Keralite' or 'Non-Keralite (Category I) will be categorised as 'Non-Keralite' (Category II). Such candidates are not eligible for admission to the Engineering courses in Government/Aided/KAU Engineering colleges or to Medical/Agriculture & Allied courses in Government/Aided/KAU. Such candidates are only eligible for admission to Engineering courses in Management quota seats in Self financing institutions sponsored by government and in the government seats in Private Self financing Colleges, which will be notified separately. The word ‘Keralite’ is specifically defined as a person of the Kerala Origin that can only mean a person born in Kerala. I do not think that the said definition admits of any ambiguity or doubt whatsoever. Therefore, the very basis of the petitioners’ contention falls down. The counsel for the petitioners also does not dispute the other contentions of the learned Government Pleader on the basis of the Clauses in the prospectus and decisions of this Court. His only contention is that because of the ambiguity pointed out by them, the rigour W.P.(c)No.16858/08 6 of the said Clauses should be relaxed, which contention has not found favour with this Court. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.16858/08 7