IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2009 / 15TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17286 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VISHNU PRASAD C.,S/O.DR.CHITHRA PRASAD D AGED 18 YEARS, 'PRASANTHI NILAYAM', PEROOR, TKMC P.O., KOLLAM-5. 2. DR.CHITHRA PRASAD D., 'PRASANTHI NILAYAM', PEROOR, TKMC P.O., KOLLAM-5. BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ....................... W.P.(C).17286/2009 ....................... Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 prospectus inviting applications for admission to the professional Degree Courses, 2009. As per the prospectus, eligible candidates claiming the benefit of reservation for other backward communities should ensure that a community certificate is endorsed in the application. The eligibility was confined to candidates whose family income, did not exceed 2.5 Lakhs. It is admitted that the petitioners' family income exceeded 2.5 Lakhs. Notification for sale of application was published on 24.1.2009. According to the respondents, sale of application commenced on 27.1.2009 and the last date for receipt of application was 26.2.2009. 1st petitioner belongs to the Ezhava community and subject to ceiling on the family income, he was otherwise entitled to apply under the SEBC category. It seems that the 1st petitioner did not do so because the family income had exceeded 2.5 Lakhs. W.P.(C).17286/09 2 2. But a beneficial intervention came, since the Government decided to enhance the income limit for SEBC candidates, for the purpose of reservation, from 2.5 Lakhs to 4.5 Lakhs. There is a dispute as to whether this enhanced limit was notified, along with the notification for the prospectus itself. Respondents claim, on the basis of Ext.R2(a), that the enhanced income limit was included in the notification inviting applications. But learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the actual amendment of the prospectus, came about as an order of the Government only as per Ext.P3 dated 20.2.2009. 1st petitioner had already submitted an application on 17.2.2009, well before the last date for submission of the application. In these circumstances, 1st petitioner, though otherwise eligible, going by the prospectus as amended, was prevented from applying for the benefit of SEBC reservation. Hence the writ petition. 3. It may not be necessary to finally pronounce whether the respondents should have notified the amendment of the prospectus, even before the sale of applications itself or whether an amended clause of W.P.(C).17286/09 3 prospectus should have been incorporated in the prospectus itself. Learned Government Pleader submits that the 1st petitioner should be deemed to have the knowledge of the enhancement of the income limit and he should have therefore, taken advantage of the same even when he submitted the application. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the complaint regarding inadequate notice of the amendment of prospectus has come only from the petitioner and from no other similarly situated person. 4. 1st petitioner seems to be facing exclusion from claiming benefit of SEBC reservation for the reason that the application form was submitted on 17.2.2009, well before the last date. This by itself should not deprive him of the chance of claiming benefit of the enhanced income limit which was brought into force by the Government, with an intention of benefiting a larger number of persons. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the 1st petitioner should also be considered as a candidate claiming SEBC reservation. W.P.(C).17286/09 4 5. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to permit the 1st petitioner to claim admission to the Professional Courses, 2009, under the SEBC reservation. To enable the 2nd respondent to do so, petitioners shall forthwith, along with the representation detailing the contents of this judgment, produce an income certificate and a community certificate and any other relevant documents, before the 2nd respondent. 1st petitioner shall also be considered for counselling in terms of the directions issued in this judgment, provided the petitioners appear before the 2nd respondent along with the requisite certificates. I make it clear that these directions have been issued only in the peculiar facts and shall not therefore, be treated as a binding precedent for any other case. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs