IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27060 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NISSAMUDDIN K., AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNHI, "JASMIN VILLA", P.O.KOLAVAYAL, KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, ALL INDIA ENGINEERING ENTRENCE EXAMINATION, PIN - 010101. 2. CENTRE COUNSELLING BOARD (AIEE-2010) VISVESVARYA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NAGPUR-440010, MAHARASHTRA. 3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT-REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, CALICUT. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI, FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.27060 of 2010 (F) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a successful candidate in the All India Engineering Entrance Examination. He had secured Rank No.546 in the OBC category. The petitioner was allotted to the 3rd respondent College for admission in the discipline Chemical Engineering. The admission procedure required the petitioner to obtain a certificate that he belongs to OBC category and report at the College on or before 26/08/2010. According to the petitioner, though he applied for the certificate on 21/08/2010, the certificate was not issued on account of intervening holidays, as a result of which, he could not report for admission with the certificate on or before 26/08/2010. 2. However, he obtained certificate on 26/08/2010 itself. As the time limit prescribed by the 2nd respondent for reporting at the College expired, apprehending that he will be losing the chance, this writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in the 3rd respondent College on WP(C) No.27060/2010 -2- the petitioner reporting at the College with the prescribed certificate. 3. However, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 submits that on expiry of the period specified by the 2nd respondent for reporting for admission, the vacancy caused on account of the non-reporting of the petitioner was reported to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent allotted students in the 7th allotment, being the last round of allotment. It is pointed out that therefore, if the prayer as sought for by the petitioner is granted that will upset the whole admission process, and therefore the petitioner should not be permitted to take advantage of the situation. Learned standing counsel also points out that in terms of the conditions of admission, on the failure of a student to report for admission at the appointed date and time, the allotment will stand cancelled and that therefore the candidate will not be considered for future allotment. 4. Although it is a fact that the inability of the petitioner to report at the 3rd respondent College on or before 26/08/2010 was for reasons which were beyond his control, still fact remains that the WP(C) No.27060/2010 -3- petitioner did not report the College at the appointed date. In that view of the matter, if the 3rd respondent has reported the vacancy caused on account of the non-reporting of the petitioner to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent made allotment of students in the 7th allotment to the vacancy thus caused, such actions of respondents 2 & 3 cannot be faulted. It is also seen from Ext.P9, that the 2nd respondent has already allotted students in the 7th allotment to the 3rd respondent College in the OBC quota also and therefore, if the petitioner is now asked to be accommodated by the 3rd respondent, that will result in cancellation of allotment of one of the students allotted as per Ext.P9. Such an order prejudicial to a student cannot be passed, in view of the conditions of admission and in the absence of such a student before this Court. 5. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was already allotted to the 3rd respondent College and his failure to report at the 3rd respondent was not for reasons attributable to him, it will only be proper that the 2nd respondent should consider the petitioner for accommodation in one of the vacant seats, provided any one of the students allotted by Ext.P9 in WP(C) No.27060/2010 -4- the 7th allotment fails to report in the College and thereby a vacancy is available to admit the petitioner without causing prejudice to anybody else. If that is not possible, it will also be open to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for allotment to any other College even after the 7th allotment, where a seat is available. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 & 3, who shall take immediate action in the matter. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg