IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18590 of 2010(W) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MERIN TREESA GEORGE,S/O.GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 16, REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER SRI.GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.V.C.JOSEPH, AGED 55, VELIYATHUMALIL, PERUMBATAVOM P.O., ELANJI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.CHARLES, SRI.M.POLY MATHAI, SRI.P.CHELLAPPAN, SRI.HARI MENON, SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.18590 of 2010 ---------------------------- Dated 2nd July, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed mainly alleging discrimination in the matter of admission to plus one course by the father of a student who had appeared for the Central Board of Secondary Education Examination in March, 2010. The result of the said examination was published on 28.5.2010. As per the Government orders the applications for Plus One admission through Single Window System for the academic year 2010-2011 were to be received in the school on or before 20.5.2010. According to the petitioner, the said action on the part of the Government would prejudicially affect the prospects of the petitioner's daughter and similarly situated students and it would definitely diminish their chances of getting admission to Plus One course. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to my attention any provision under any statute or any other orders which would compel the Government to wait till the publication of the result of the CBSE examination for the purpose of effecting admissions to the Plus One course under the Single Window System. When faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution of India guarantees WP(C).No.18590/2010 2 such a protection and, therefore, the action on the part of the Government in closing the first allotment without waiting for the publication of the result is liable to be interfered with. I am afraid I could not uphold the said contention in view of the statement made on behalf of the 3rd respondent pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.15351 of 2010. The said writ petition was filed in similar circumstances by the parents of some similarly situated students. The relevant portion in the said statement reads thus:- “Last year also almost 4 lakhs applications were received. Out of these, 95% applications were from State Stream and the remaining 5% were from ICSE, CBSE, etc. This year also 2nd respondent is expecting the same. Anyhow the students similar to that of the petitioners will get a chance to apply for the supplementary allotment and that too along with the SAY students. During last year 24000 students got admission through the supplementary allotment. Only 2888 students applied through the CBSE stream.” 2. It is thus evident that the closing of the first allotment will not foreclose the chances of the students who pass out in the CBSE examinations and that they will get a chance to apply for the supplementary allotment along with the SAY students. Therefore, it cannot be said that the right to education, will be deprived in the case of the daughter of the petitioner and similarly situated students. In the WP(C).No.18590/2010 3 absence of any provision which would compel the Government to postpone admissions till publication of result of examinations conducted by the CBSE or such other Boards, I am unable to hold the action on the part of the respondents as illegal warranting judicial interference. At the same time, I am of the considered view that if the future of a group of students from a particular stream is at stake, the State cannot remain as a mute spectator. In such circumstances, the issue has to be addressed with an urgency by the State. Subject to the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge