IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1772 of 2011(Y) ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.29797/2011 Dated 09/11/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ PANKAJ KUMAR, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.SHRI RUP LAL, NABAHI V P O, TEH - SARKAGHAT, MANDI, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PIN - 175024. BY ADV. SRI.NAVEEN THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- DIRECTORATE OF AYURVEDA, MEDICAL EDUCATION, AROGYABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF DIRECTOR, MEDICAL EDUCATION, AROGYABHAVAN. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1772 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. The issue raised in this appeal is with regard to the admission to the Post Graduate Course in Ayurveda (Ayurveda Vahcaspati M.D (Ay), 2011). 2. The appellant, who belongs to the State of Himachal Pradesh, had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P(C). No.29049 of 2011 with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to consider his right to get admission by setting aside the final rank list prepared for the 16 general seats reserved for candidates from outside State of Kerala as per clause 3(ii) of Exhibit P1 prospects. The appellant/petitioner secured 9th rank in respect of the 16 seats earmarked under the above quota. 3. The case projected by the appellant/petitioner in the Writ Petition was that, the petitioner happened to be sidelined for the reason that he did not produce the provisional certificate, medical registration certificate and transfer certificate, for which, time was WA.1772/11 2 sought for. It was also brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge that such concession was being extended by the respondent, in respect of some of the students, who were not having native certificate etc. and that the petitioner alone was being discriminated, which was sought to be intercepted. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge passed the final verdict on 3rd November, 2011, whereby the respondent was directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner as well, giving enlargement of time for production of the relevant documents, if such certificates were produced on or before 5.11.2011, provided that seats were still available in the 'outside students quota' in the concerned subject. 5. The case as narrated in the instant Writ Petition and the appeal is that, even though the appellant appeared before the respondent and produced the relevant certificates, they were refused to be accepted stating that all the seats had been filled up as early as 31.10.2011, which made him to approach this Court seeking to set aside the list and for granting appropriate relief as sought for. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner had WA.1772/11 3 not pursued the relief with regard to quashing of the list earlier and further that the persons likely to be affected who were already given placement in the list were not impleaded in the party array. It was also observed that even according to the appellant/writ petitioner, he appeared only after the stipulated date and as such, there was no merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, interference was declined and the Writ Petition was dismissed, which forms the subject matter in this Writ Appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the stand taken by the respondent is not at all correct or proper as four seats were available on the date when the judgment was passed by this Court in W.P(C).No. 29049 of 2011, i.e., on 3.11.2011. As such, the stand now taken by the respondent that all the seats have been filled up as early as 31.10.2011 is quite contrary to the actual facts and figures. 8. Going by the undisputed pleadings, this Court finds that the persons, who are already enlisted in respect of the 16 seats earmarked for the quota have not been brought into the party array, without which no challenge to set aside the said list can be entertained. That apart, it is also revealed from the proceedings that the direction given by this Court earlier was to consider the WA.1772/11 4 candidature of the writ petitioner only if further seats were available as on that date, i.e., 3.11.2011. The stand taken by the respondent is that all the seats had already been filled up as early as 31.10.2011. No materials have been produced before this Court to take a contrary finding that the respondent has pursued any act giving admission to any student after the said date. We find no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs