IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 29718 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ATHIRA MOHAN, D/O. MOHAN, KUTTIVELLIKUZHIYIL, PUNNATHARA WEST.P.O, ETTUMANOOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.SAJI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, STATE INSITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY (SI-MET), PALLIMUKKU, PETTA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 024. 3. PRINCIPAL, STATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY AND COLLEGE OF NURSING, MALAMPUZHA.P.O, PALAKKAD - 678 651. 4. THE DIRECTOR, LAL BAHADUR SASTHRI CENTRAL FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.J RAJASREE R4 BY SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.LEO GEORGE,SC, THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S WPC NO.29718/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE MARK LIST OF THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 06.09.2011. P3: COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 10.10.2011. P4: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31.10.2011. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE S ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29718 of 2011 L ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 28th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner, who belongs to OEC category, joined B.Sc Nursing Course in a management seat in the third respondent college, a self financing college under the second respondent. According to the petitioner, subsequently, in the spot admission conducted by the fourth respondent she was eligible to be allotted a merit seat in the Government Colleges subject to production of NOC from the second respondent. It is her case that she submitted an application for NOC and that the second respondent issued Ext.P5 NOC with an endorsement confining her eligibility to seek admission only in their own college at Uduma and that as a result thereof, the fourth respondent refused to allot the petitioner to the merit seats which were available in the Government Nursing Colleges. It is in these circumstances she filed this writ petition to require respondents 2 and 3 to W.P.(C) No.29718/2011 : 2 : issue a fresh NOC and to refund the fee in terms of the prospectus conditions. 2. A statement has been filed by the second respondent. As per the statement, admissions to the merit seats in the Nursing Colleges ought to have been completed by 31.10.2011, which is the last date fixed by the Indian Nursing Council. It is stated that, on 31.10.2011, the fourth respondent conducted a special spot admission and that on the strength of NOC similar to Ext.P5, six students have already sought admission in different colleges under the second respondent. It is also stated that in terms of the decision taken by respondents 2 and 3, second respondent had issued Ext.P5 NOC to the petitioner, enabling her to seek admission in the merit seat in the College at Uduma. It is also submitted that after the last date, respondents have no obligation to issue NOC to a student like the petitioner. Further, it is also submitted that students like the petitioner are likely to get the entire fee concession from the W.P.(C) No.29718/2011 : 3 : Government, if admission is obtained in merit seat in any one of their colleges. 3. On behalf of the fourth respondent, it is submitted that after completing the process of spot admission on 31.10.2011 vacant seats available have already been surrendered to the Government and that if at all, any seats including merit seat are available, it is up to the Government to make admissions. 4. The prospectus on the basis of which the petitioner has obtained admission under the third respondent college has been made available to me. Prospectus shows that any candidate, who gets allotment and admission to a course through DME in the year 2011, will be eligible for full refund of the fee remitted and that the student need not pay any liquidated damages up to the last date fixed by the Government. Therefore, if the petitioner was able to obtain admission in a seat through the DME on or before 31.10.2011, she had the eligibility to get the fee refunded and W.P.(C) No.29718/2011 : 4 : also was absolved of the liability to pay damages. Since this benefit is available in the prospectus, a student, who made a request for NOC prior to 31.10.2011, also had the right to get NOC also in order to enable the student to complete the process of allotment by the DME. 5. In this case, Ext.P5 conditional NOC was issued to the petitioner on 31.10.2011, which means request for NOC was made by the petitioner prior to the last date specified by the Government, viz., 31.10.2011. In such circumstances, there was no reason why such a NOC should have been a conditional one instead of an unconditional NOC. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the second respondent ought to have issued NOC to the petitioner, without restricting her entitlement to seek admission in its own colleges. 6. In that view, I dispose of this writ petition, directing the second respondent to issue an unconditional NOC to the petitioner on the production of a copy of this judgment and in case the petitioner obtains an allotment through the DME, to W.P.(C) No.29718/2011 : 5 : treat the same as one obtained prior to the last date specified by the Government, viz., 31.10.2011. Counsel for the petitioner says that merit seats in Government Colleges are still lying vacant and that since the fourth respondent has surrendered the vacancies, it is for the Government to make allotments. Taking note of the submission so made, which is also endorsed by the fourth respondent, I direct that, it will be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the DME, who, thereupon, will examine the claim of the petitioner and subject to availability of seats, and if it is otherwise permissible, will consider her for allotment to such vacant seats. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/30/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge