IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19504 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MYSA ABDUL AZEEZ V. VELLATHUR HOUSE, THRIKKANDIYUR PO, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIO NS GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 19504 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for admission to professional degree courses in the State of Kerala, this year. The petitioner appeared for the common entrance test conducted by the respondent for medical and engineering courses. Parallelly, the petitioner also appeared for the National Aptitude Test conducted by the Council of Architecture, India. However, in the OMR data sheet the petitioner did not fill up the option for architecture, but only filled up the options for engineering and medical/agriculture. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is eligible for admission to B.Arch. course in view of the fact that the rank list for admission to B.Arch. course is based on the marks scored by the petitioner in the qualifying examination and the marks scored in the National Aptitude Test conducted by the Council of Architecture. But the petitioner is not being considered for admission to the B.Arch course on the ground that the petitioner has not opted for architecture in the OMR data sheet, is the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that although the petitioner has not filled up the column relating to option for architecture, that is of no consequence, since the admission to B.Arch. course is not on the basis of the common entrance test conducted by the respondent. The question of option arises only in the case of those who appeared for the common entrance test conducted by the respondent and has been included in w.p.c.19504/10 2 the rank list prepared pursuant thereto, is her contention. Therefore, according to the petitioner, notwithstanding the failure on the part of the petitioner to fill up the column relating to option for architecture in the OMR data sheet, the petitioner is eligible to be considered for admission to B.Arch. course in accordance with the rank list to be prepared based on the marks scored in the qualifying examination and the marks scored in the National Aptitude Test conducted by the Council of Architecture. The petitioner relies on clauses 1.4 and 11 of Ext.P2 prospectus in support of her contention. 2. The learned Government Pleader points out that applications are invited in accordance with the prospectus not only for medical and engineering courses, but also for architecture. Although the admission to architecture is not based on the ranking in the common entrance test, Ext.P2 prospectus does not cease to be applicable for admission to architecture course. Ext.P2 prospectus itself makes it abundantly clear that the prospectus is in respect of admission to engineering, architecture and medical/agriculture courses. According to him, as per clause 7.4 of the prospectus, every candidate is required to fill up all columns in the application form as well as the OMR data sheet and the entries in both should correspond. Detailed instructions for filling of the OMR data sheet have been given in the Annexure to the prospectus and only those students who have w.p.c.19504/10 3 opted for architecture also can be considered for admission to the architecture course, is the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. At the outset I note that Ext.P2 prospectus is not only for admission to medical and engineering courses, but it is also for admission to architecture course as well. Therefore, every clause in Ext.P2 prospectus applies to admission to architecture course as well. Ext.P2 prospectus is not issued merely for those who appear for the common entrance examination, but it also applies to those candidates who aspire for admission to architecture course by appearing in the National Aptitude Test in architecture. The prospectus is for admission to all courses, although the mode of admission to architecture course is different. Therefore, the persons who aspire for admission to architecture cannot have a different rule in the matter of admission. Consequently, all clauses in Ext.P2 prospectus are applicable to those candidates who apply for admission to architecture course as well. Clause 1.4 of Ext.P2 reads thus; “1.4. Admissions to the above courses except Architecture are regulated on the basis of merit as assessed in the Engineering/Medical Entrance Examinations conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations (CEE). The details of seats, to which admissions are made through the Entrance Examinations, are given in the relevant paragraphs. For admissions to the Architecture course, the merit as assessed by giving equal weightage to the marks obtained in the 'National Aptitude Test in w.p.c.19504/10 4 Architecture' [NATA], conducted by the National Institute of Advanced Studies in Architecture (NIASA), and the grade/marks in the qualifying examination will be the criterion. [As per directives of the Council of Architecture, India.]” Clause 11 deals with the centralised allotment process and online submission of options. But clause 7.4 reads thus: “7.4. Instructions for filling the Application Form: (a) The detailed instructions for filling each item in the application are given in Annexure XX of the Prospectus. (b) Applications should be complete in all respects. A candidate will be considered for the Entrance Examination or for admission, only if he/she has furnished the relevant certificates prescribed in the Prospectus, in proof of eligibility, or in support of any claim for reservation, under any category. (c) The main application form is accompanied by an OMR (Optical Mark Reader) data sheet. The data as marked in the OMR data sheet will be captured by the OMR machine, which will be used for processing in computer. Hence, the entries made against each item in the OMR data sheet should tally with the corresponding entries in the main application form. Any mistake in filling this sheet or providing false/incomplete/wrong information will affect the candidate's eligibility for admission or claim for reservation under any category. It is obligatory that the candidate should fill all the items in the main application form and OMR data sheet.” In view of clause 7.4(c), I am of opinion that a candidate who aspires for admission to architecture course is bound to fill up the OMR data sheet signifying his/her option for architecture course also, failure to do which would entail denial of admission to architecture. That being so, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.19504/10 5