IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2598 of 2010(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.ANEESHA, OTTAPLAVILA VEEDU,KARODU PO, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, AYURVEDA, AROGYA BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL, PARASSINIKADAVU AYURVEDA COLLEGE, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR FOR R2 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R2 MR.V.MANU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2598/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF PROSPECTUS FOR THE PHARMACY COURSE ISSUED BY R1. P2 : COPY OF CHANGES IN THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO R2. P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. P3(a) : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14/01/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.2598 of 2010 (Y) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to admit the petitioner for the Pharmacy Course in Ayurveda in the College of which the 2nd respondent is the Principal. 2. According to the petitioner, in the rank list for admission, she is at Rank No.44 in the Latin Catholic Community Quota, and there are 3 seats vacant in the merit quota and that to one of the vacant seats she should be accommodated. When this writ petition came up for orders, this Court passed order dated 01/02/2010 requiring the respondents to explain if there are seats vacant in the merit quota, and if so why candidates in the merit quota shall not be admitted. 3. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. According to the 1st respondent, the vacant seats pointed out by the petitioner were in the Departmental Quota and to those vacancies, candidates have been allotted from the Departmental Quota itself. WP(C) No.2598/2010 -2- However, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that even now there is a seat vacant in the merit quota and therefore, her candidature should be considered as against that vacant seat. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, there is a seat vacant, there is no reason why the 1st respondent should not allot candidate from the merit list, which is available, and if there is no superior candidate available, there is also no reason why the candidature of the petitioner should not be considered against the vacancy. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 1st respondent to ascertain as to whether any vacant seat is available in the College in question, in which event to consider candidates for allotment to the vacant seat, and also to consider the candidature of the petitioner, if there is no other better candidate available. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent who shall take expedite action in the matter. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg