IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 481 of 2010(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SAUMYA TOM, D/O. VIMALAMMA WILLIAMS, SAUMYA NIVAS, KANJIRACODE, KUNDARA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT -691 501. BY ADV. MR.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR , CREDIT AND SEMESTER SYSTEM, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA KARIAVATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 581. 3. THE HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THYCAUD 4. NITHINA, D/O. MANOHARAN M.S. NIVAS, ALTHARAMOODU, KADAKKAL P.O., PIN 691 536. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. MR.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON 29/03/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 481/2010-I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE HALL TICKET FOR THE ADMISSION TEST. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE HANDWRITTEN LIST PUBLISHED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31/10/2009 SUBMITTED BY GERTRUDE S. TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 04/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11/12/2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REGISTRAR. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/12/2009 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO GERTRUDE S. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/12/2009 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO GERTRUDE S. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.AC.D/1/2009 DATED 24/11/2009. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 481 of 2010-I - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT The matter relates to the admission for M.Ed. course conducted by the first respondent University. Aggrieved by the denial of admission, even though the petitioner was included in the waiting list for two branches, viz. Mathematics and General subjects, this writ petition has been filed. Ext.P1 is the hall ticket issued to the petitioner for attending the Common Admission Test. The total number of seats available were 25, out of which three seats each were earmarked for the subjects English, Physical Science, Social Science, Natural Science and Mathematics, two seats were available for the subject Hindi and one for Malayalam. There is another category, viz. General Subjects and seven seats are set apart for the said category. Ext.P2 is the list showing the details of candidates included. The petitioner was placed rank No.1 in the waiting list for Mathematics and rank No.5 in the waiting list for General Subjects. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in the first interview held on 22.10.2009 in Mathematics, even though memo cards were issued to three candidates, only two of them turned up for interview. It is her case that a wpc 481/2010 2 candidate who was absent for interview and who was included in the main list, was admitted later on her request, against which the petitioner had made an oral complaint. It is stated that this is a malafide action, as the petitioner who was the first in the waiting list for Mathematics, ought to have been accommodated. 3. With regard to General Subjects also, seven vacancies were available. One candidate out of the seven in the main list did not turn up for interview. Two were admitted to other subject categories and the remaining four were admitted to the General Subjects. Rank No.1 in the waiting list did not turn up and other candidate, viz. rank Nos.2 to 4 were admitted to other disciplines and thus, three more vacancies were available and the petitioner was the next eligible candidate for admission. But, the 4th respondent and another candidate by name Betty Sunny, whose names did not figure in the list for General Subjects, were given admission. Failing to get any positive action in the matter, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is explained in para 4 that admission to M.Ed. course is given in accordance with the merit in the rank list prepared on the basis of the entrance test, marks scored in P.G. Examination and weightage marks. Qualifying in the admission test is not the only criterion for the eligibility for admission. The system of wpc 481/2010 3 selection for M.Ed. in the Department is based on the school subjects like Physical Science, Social Science, Natural Science, English, Malayalam, etc. in the subject specific quota and the 'General M.Ed.' seats are to be filled by students who are having high merit in the rank list and students who have P.G. in 'General Subjects' in Education like Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy and Commerce. One from each general subject are accommodated as per the availability of seats. Likewise, for community reservation also, merit of students among these categories will be considered. Accordingly, it is contended that the entire admission process was completed strictly on merit and taking into account the rules pertaining to the reservation norms and subject quota. 5. With regard to the contention that the petitioner was denied admission for the Maths subject illegally, it is averred that all the three candidates turned up on the same day. As far as Latin Catholic quota is concerned, two have been accommodated in the merit quota (Beena V.L. - Natural Science and Beena M - Commerce) and one in the OBC (Suja A - Social Science). The file produced at the time of argument also supports these contentions. 6. With regard to the General Subjects, five candidates in the merit list took admission on 22.10.2009 itself. The candidates who did not turn wpc 481/2010 4 up belonged to Ezhava quota and SC/ST quota respectively. In order to fill the Ezhava quota, the next topper among the Ezhava candidates who was already in the waiting list for Natural Science (4th respondent) was called for interview on 2.11.2009 and got admission. The quota for SC/ST candidates was re-advertised due to lack of eligible candidates and it was converted to OEC as per Ext.R1(a) letter and a candidate by name Betty Sunny was admitted. It is also stated that while giving a reply to the petitioner as per Ext.P9, a mistake occurred therein and the same is explained in para 9 of the counter affidavit. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no transparency in the admission process and the candidates have been admitted without considering the merit or reservation quotas. The main complaint is regarding the admission of the 4th respondent, even though it is argued during the hearing that the admission in various other quotas are also faulty. With regard to the admission of the 4th respondent, it is evident that she was given the benefit of reservation for Ezhava. Going by the system adopted, various candidates included in the waiting list also may not get admission as vacancies will have to be distributed to fill up seats in various subjects, on the basis of claims for reservation also. 8. It is true that rules of reservation have not been published to the wpc 481/2010 5 advantage of the candidates. Evidently, the quotas for reservation have to be filled up by the respondents. Therefore, the particular eligible candidates of various communities will have to be given admission. Herein, three Latin Catholic candidates have secured admission. The petitioner is also a Latin Catholic candidate. The petitioner was included in the waiting list in two subjects, Mathematics and General Subjects. The admission granted to 4th respondent is within the reservation quota and cannot therefore be said to be wrong. Once it is held that there is nothing wrong in the admission of the 4th respondent, the complaint if any of the petitioner regarding the others cannot be a subject matter of adjudication herein, as the other candidates are not parties in this writ petition. 9. For another reason also, the 4th respondent's admission cannot be faulted. Learned Standing Counsel for the University further submitted that the 4th respondent had filed a representation stating that her name is not included in the waiting list for General Subjects, as she was entitled to be included based on the marks scored . Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the 4th respondent has got higher index marks than that of the petitioner and there is no illegality in that regard also. On this ground also, the admission of the 4th respondent cannot be said to be illegal, as she is having more index marks than the petitioner. Merit between them was considered wpc 481/2010 6 to grant admission. For all these reasons, I see no reason for interference in the admission granted to fourth respondent. 10. But it will be of importance to notice that the complaints like this, are generated since the rules of reservation and the method of admission are not made public by the University. Therefore, efforts will be taken in subsequent years when admissions are made, to publish in advance the rules of reservation, the method of inclusion of candidates in the waiting list and the mode of filling up of the vacancies, so that complaints could be avoided. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/