IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16085 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. MIDHUN S., S/O.SATHYASEELAN, MULATTU UTHRAM NIVAS, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. CHITHU K.S., KARANCHERY HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM, KURUPPAMPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. ELDO THOMAS, ELAKKATTIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. ALEX MATHEW, VENKADATHU HOUSE, KUDAYATHOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. AFSAL KHAN T.E., THEKKEMURANJOOR HOUSE, KANJAR P.O., KANJAR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. ARUN K.PILLAI, PARAMBUKATTU HOUSE, RANDAR P.O., THOTTAMCHERY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. NEETHU PRASAD, VALAYAMPILLIL HOUSE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA-685606. 8. BERIL JOSE, KOCHUMUTTOM HOUSE, MANNAMKANDAM P.O., 200, ACRE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 9. RENJITH MOHAN, KOCHUVEETTIL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM P.O., AVOLY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 10. SEBIN C.THOMAS, CHOLLANICKAL HOUSE, KARIMKUNNAM P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 11. JYOTHIN JOSEPH, KULANGARA HOUSE, KONNATHADY P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 12. JITHIN THOMAS, PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, PERUVANTHANAM, KODIKUTHI, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 13. SALMI KAREEM, KOORUMULLANTHADATHIL HOUSE, VATTAKAYAM ROAD, ERATTUPETTAH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. C.A.MAJEED MR. K.H.ASIF RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEXE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PADMA VILASOM ROAD, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE JOINT CONTROLLER OF TECHNICAL EXAMINATIONS, KAIMANAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695040. 4. ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL OFFICER, P.K.BLOCK, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560009. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.N. SANTHOSH STANDING COUNSEL MR. S. KRISHNAMOORTHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 16085 OF 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT. P1 : A PHTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RES- PONDENT. EXT. P2 : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR B.TECH LATERAL ENTRY COURSE 2011 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT. P3 : THE CERTIFICATE PROVING THE QUALIFICATION OF THE PETITIONERS. EXT. P4 : THE HALL TICKETS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS FOR ATTEND- ING THE ENTRANCE EXAMINATIO. EXT. P5 : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.03.2011 EXT. P6 : A PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISED TIME SCHEDULE FOR LATERAL ENTRY B.TECH ADMISSION /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P (C) No . 16085 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 22nd June , 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers : “i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ; order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts. P1 to P6 and direct the 1st respondent to relax cut off marks from 20 % in the entrance examination conducted on 30.04.2011 under lateral entry scheme, so as to accommodate the petitioner; ii. to declare that the action of 1st and 2nd respondents in fixing the cut off marks as 20 % in the entrance examination and thereby denying admission to the petitioners to B.Tech course as illegal; iii. To pass such other writ, order or direction as prayed for by the petitioners in the due course, which shall be just and proper. And iv. Award the cost of the petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that , altogether 6069 applications were received in respect of the 1798 seats earmarked for lateral entry B.Tech course; out of which, 2312 applicants stand qualified. W.P. (C) No. 16085 of 2011 : 2 : 3. The learned Government Pleader, submits that, even if the contention of the petitioner to reduce the cut off marks is accepted, there is no chance to accommodate the petitioners in the quota earmarked for lateral entry, since 2312 qualified applicants are standing in front of the petitioner in the queue, for the available 1798 seats. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the first respondent to consider the grievance projected by the petitioner in Ext. P5, within a reasonable time. 5. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, without expressing anything on merits, but for directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P5 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd