IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 15TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 24151 of 2010() ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- -- ANJU ROY, D/O.ROY VARGHESE, AGED 21 YEARS, KADALIKKATTEL (H), PAMPAKUDA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.24151/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GATE 2010 SCORE CARD DTD. 15.3.2010 OF THE PETITIONER. P2:- COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS DTD. 5.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS, P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEARING NO.100434 (DOWN LOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE RESPONDENTS) OF THE PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF THE 3RD ALLTEMENT LIST PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO RAJEEV GANDHI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. P5:- COPY OF THE 3RD ALLOTMENT LIST PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, TRIVANDRUM. P6:- COPY OF THE 3RD ALLOTMENT LIST PUBLISHED IN THE WEBSITE BY THE RESPONDENTS TO GOVERNMENT ENGINEERING COLLEGE, THRISSUR. P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 15.7.2010 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE DOWNLOADED REVISED SCHEDULE OF M.TECH ADMISSION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.24151 of 2010 (T) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 6th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a B.Tech in Electrical Engineering. In pursuance to Ext.P2 prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Degree Course in Engineering for the year 2010, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application. However, she was not granted admission and according to the petitioner, persons, who had lower GATE score and even those who did not possess GATE score, were granted admission. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed. 2. Going by the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner opted for admission in the GATE quota. It is stated that on account of the low GATE score that the petitioner had secured, the petitioner was not eligible for admission in the GATE quota. In so far as the sponsored candidates quota is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner did not opt for admission in the non-GATE quota and therefore, her candidature WP(C) No.24151/2010 -2- could not be considered in that quota. 3. Ext.P2 is the prospectus. Clause VIII dealing with selection of candidates provides that selection will be based on GATE score. It further provides that if sufficient GATE qualified candidates are not available, the selection will be made from Keralite candidates based on the aggregate marks up to 7th semester in their qualifying examination, from among those who have produced Nativity Certificate at the time of application. It is also stated that sponsored candidates will be admitted as per the Government Rules, and that seats remaining unfilled in that category will be filled up by candidates sponsored by Government controlled Self Financing Engineering Colleges. It is further provided that vacancy, if any, in this quota will be filled up by admitting general category candidates, and that those who are admitted in this category will not be eligible for GATE scholarship. 4. Thus, as per the method of selection of candidates incorporated in the prospectus, GATE score will be the basis for admission. Admittedly, among the candidates, who were admitted on the basis of GATE score, the petitioner did not secure sufficient WP(C) No.24151/2010 -3- marks. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any claim in this quota. However, when it comes to the vacant seats in sponsored quota, the vacancies are to be filled up by admitting general category candidates. Going by the provisions of Clause VIII dealing with the selection of candidates, I am inclined to think that the expression “general category candidates” mentioned for filling up the vacancies in the sponsored quota are those candidates having GATE score and have failed to secure admission in the GATE quota. If so viewed, even if the petitioner had not opted for non-GATE quota, her candidature ought to have been considered to the vacant seats available in the sponsored quota. This has not been done. Therefore, the respondents are liable to consider the candidature of the petitioner. However, fact remains that other candidates, who are admitted in the sponsored quota including those having lower rank than the petitioner, are not parties in the writ petition and therefore, any order passed in the writ petition could not be to the prejudice of any of them. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for admission to the Post Graduate WP(C) No.24151/2010 -4- Course on the basis of Ext.P3 application made by the petitioner, without disturbing the admissions already granted to any of the candidates including those having lower GATE score as compared to the petitioner. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg