IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19561 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ABRAHAM ZACHARIAH,S/O.M.C.ZACHARIAH, MANIMALA HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,PIN-686531 BY ADV. SRI.V.C.JAMES SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH (KURISUMMOOTTIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,SATHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-655001 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR,NCC (KERALA) P.B.NO.2212, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695010 3. THE COMMANDER,GP H2 NCC, KOTTAYAM-686001 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANILKUMAR ADV. SHRI.MATHEW SEBASTIAN, CGC FOR R2&3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19561 of 2011(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 28.1.2011 EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ADMIT CARD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P3: COPY OF THE CAMP ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 20.5.2007 EXT.P4: COPY OF THE 'A' CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION HELD IN 2008 UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ISSUED ON 17.3.2008 EXT.P5: COPY OF THE CAMP ATTENDANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 27.12.2009 EXT.P6: COPY OF THE 'B' CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION HELD IN 2010 UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DTD.8.3.2010 EXT.P7: COPY OF THE CAMP CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 14.5.2010 EXT.P8: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ATTACHMENT OF NCC PERSONNEL TO REGULAR ARMY, NAVAL AND AIR FORCE UNIT OF 2/4 GR PANGODE FROM 29.3.2010 TO 12.4.2010 ISSUED ON 27.7.2010 EXT.P9: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL INTEGRATION CAMP, KOLLAM FOR THE PERIOD FROM 24.12.2010 TO 4.1.2011 ISSUED ON 4.1.2011 EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ATTENDENCE CERTIFICATE DTD.3.2.2011 EXT.P11: COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED ON 23.6.2011 EXT.P12: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS EXT.P13: COPY OF THE CATEGORY LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR NCC QUOTA IN THE WEBSITE ON 27.7.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2-A : COPY OF THE MODIFIED NORMS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DTD.26.9.2001 EXT.R2-B : COPY OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES DTD.4.4.2011 EXT.R2-C : COPY OF CALL LETTER DTD.4.4.2011 EXT.R2-D : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DESPATCH CUM STAMP ACCOUNT REGISTER WP(C).No. 19561 of 2011(U) EXT.R2-E : COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DESPATCH CUM STAMP ACCOUNT REGISTER DTD.10.6.2011 EXT.R2-F : COPY OF THE RANK LIST DTD.29.4.2011 EXT.R2-G : COPY OF THE CHECK SHEET PREPARED ON 22.2.2011 //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.19561 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for Entrance Examination for Engineering admission. The petitioner claimed the benefits of special quota for NCC candidates as provided in Clause 5.2.20 of the prospectus, the extract of which is Ext.P12. His grievance is that despite his eligibility, in the list forwarded to the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent excluded his name. It is complaining of the above this writ petition is filed. 2. Clause 5.2.20 of the prospectus (Ext.P12) provides as follows: “NCC Quota (CC): The candidates seeking admission under the NCC quota should forward the original application form to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, and a photocopy of the application to the Deputy Director General, NCC (Kerala), PB No.2212, Thirvananthapuram-695 010 through the respective NCC Unit Officers where the candidates have been enrolled as cadets, before the last date for submission of application.” 3. It was accordingly that the petitioner applied to W.P(C) No.19561 of 2011 2 the 2nd respondent. From the counter affidavit filed it appears that on receipt of the applications, in terms of the guidelines framed by respondents 2 and 3, they were to be interviewed and the candidates were required to produce all the certificates in original and also photocopy of the admit card for entrance examination. The guidelines have been produced as Ext.R1(a). It is stated that in pursuance of Ext.R2(a) all candidates were issued call letters for interview and Ext.R2(a) is a format of the call letter. This also specifies the time and venue and also the documents to be produced by the candidates concerned. Ext.R2(d) is the despatch register which indicates that the call letter was despatched to the petitioner also. According to the respondents the petitioner did not appear for the interview and therefore when Ext.R2(f) list was forwarded to the 1st respondent, his name was excluded. 4. The petitioner has two contentions. One is that he did not receive the call letter for interview. Second is that even if he did not appear for the interview, apart from W.P(C) No.19561 of 2011 3 denying him marks of the interview, his candidature itself could not have been rejected. 5. As far his contention that he did not receive the call letter is concerned, petitioner has no case that in despatching the call letters by ordinary post, the respondents have violated any of the rules governing the same. In the absence of any such allegation, I cannot find fault with the respondents for sending the call letters by ordinary post. If that be so, once it is proved that the call letters have been sent, even if it has not reached the petitioner, respondents cannot be accused of having committed any illegality. 6. His contention that, even if he did not appear for the interview, his candidature could not have been rejected, is also liable to be rejected. At the time of interview, all the candidates were required to produce all certificates in original for the perusal of the authorities for determining their eligibility to be included in the list. In view of the absence of the petitioner this process was not done and W.P(C) No.19561 of 2011 4 therefore if the petitioner was excluded from the rank list, there is no illegality in such exclusion. 7. Further in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 it is stated thus: “The maximum marks obtained by the petitioner on the basis of the certificates produced by him is only 85 out of 500. Maximum 10 marks is awarded in the personal interview. Even if the petitioner had appeared for interview he would have scored only below 90 marks and he would have been placed some where around 300th rank. The total number of seats in the NCC quota is only 30 and there is no possibility of the petitioner to get admission in the NCC quota.” In such circumstances, no grounds have been made out for interference. The Writ Petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ab