IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16001 of 2011(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JAHANARA.K.A., AGED 18 YEARS, D/O. K.A.ABDUL RAHIMAN, KUNNATH PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR.P.O., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, P.O.PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, KANNUR-670503, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, THE ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, P.O.PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, KANNUR-670503. 3. THE CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION, KERALA(CAPE), CO-BANK TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695003, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 4. THE PRINCIPAL, THE CO-OPERATIVE MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOCHI-683104. 5. THE DIRECTOR, HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. * ADDITIONAL R7 IMPLEADED 7. JAMSHEERA D/O. K.T.MUHAMMED KUNHI, JASEEM NIVAS, KALLOORI KADAVU, P.O.AROLI, KANNUR- 670 566 [IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.8.2011 IN I.A.13666/11] ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM,SC,CO.OP ACADEMY-PRO FOR R3,4 SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R2 SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH FOR R2 SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16001 of 2011(A) APPENDIX --------------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- P1: COPY OF THE MARK SHEET DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE DIRECTOREATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENR IN THE 51ST KERALA KALOLSAVAM (2010-11 HELD AT KOTTAYAM) P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIOENR IN THE 51ST KERLA KALOLSAVAM (2010-11 HELD AT KOTTAYAM) P4: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.5.2011 UNDER WHICH THE RESULTS OF COMMON ENTRANCE EXAMINATION P5: COPY OF THE PROSECTUS AND APPLICATION FORM FOR ADMISSION UNDER THE MANAGEMENT AND NON-RESIDENT INDIAN QUOTA DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION TO NON- RESIDENT INDIAN QUOTA SEATS FOR VARIOUS COURSES CONDUCTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FORM DATED 30.5.2011 P7: COPOY OF THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXTENDING THE DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION FOR B.TECH AND B.SC NURSING DATED 6.7.2011 P8: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MANGALAM DAILY DATED 8.6.2011 P9: COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPROT PUBLISHED IN THE DEEPIKA DAILY DATED 8.6.2011 P10: COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 7.7.2011 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIBITS ---------------------------------------- R1(a): TRUE COPY OF PROSPECTUS ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FORM FOR MBBS/BDS/B.PHARM/B.SC(NURSING)/BSC.(MLT) NRI QUOTA ADMISSION FOR THE YEAR 2011 //True copy// PA to Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No. 16001 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT Heard Sri. V.G.Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.V. Surendranath and Sri.Thomas Abraham, the standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and 3 and 4 respectively and learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Despite service of notice there is no appearance on behalf of the additional 7th respondent. 2. Petitioner completed her Higher Secondary Course in March 2011. Results evidenced by Exhibit P1 mark list were published on 31.5.2011. She had applied for admission to the professional degree courses and appeared for the Entrance Examination conducted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination. Since she did not succeed in getting admission to any of the Medical Colleges, she approached respondent Nos. 1 and 3 exploring the possibility of getting an admission in the NRI quota. According to the petitioner one of her relative was willing to sponsor her in that quota. 3. It is her case that thereupon she was informed that the date for making the application were already over and therefore W.P(C) No. 16001 of 2011 2 respondent Nos. 1 and 3 refused to issue even application forms. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed and the contention raised by the petitioner is that going by the prospectus published, the application for admission in the NRI quota should be accompanied by the certificates of the qualifying examination and should contain marks for the relevant subjects. It is stated that students from Higher Secondary Course could have submitted their applications only subsequent to 31.5.2011 and therefore the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in accepting the applications even before the publication of the results is illegal and contrary to the prospectus conditions. With this contention, petitioner seeks a declaration that the admission in the NRI quota for M.B.B.S course for the year 2011 made by respondents 1 and 3 is illegal and to direct the respondents to issue application form to the petitioner, and consider her candidature in the NRI quota. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, on being informed that one seat in the NRI quota in the first respondent College was vacant, this Court passed an order dated 26.7.2011 directing that the seat be kept unfilled unless otherwise ordered W.P(C) No. 16001 of 2011 3 by this Court. Subsequently it was reported that by the time the order was passed, the seat was already filled up by admitting an eligible student and thereupon the petitioner impleaded the said student as additional respondent No.7. 5. In so far as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they have filed a counter affidavit which confirms the availability of 15 seats in the NRI quota which are filled up on the basis of marks in the Plus-Two and personal interview. It is also stated that in the year 2011, the dates for receiving the applications were from 15.3.2011 to 31.3.2011. It is stated that during the said period most of the applicants down loaded the application forms from the website of the College and submitted their applications. Proceeding further it is also stated that there was nothing which prevented the petitioner also from making an application within the time and that the admissions were actually closed only on 8.7.2011. 6. In so far as respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, a statement has been filed on their behalf, where it is stated that 51 applications were received till 26.4.2011 and that among the applicants, 15 candidates were selected based on seniority in W.P(C) No. 16001 of 2011 4 the list. 7. Exhibit R1 (a) is the prospectus published by the first respondent. Clause 5 of the prospectus require the applicants to produce attested copy of the mark list of the qualifying examination along with application. Clause 6 states that “selection shall be based on merit of the qualifying examination and an interview”. The application form, also requires the applicants to indicate the marks secured by them in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English in the qualifying examination. From this it is therefore obvious that when an application is submitted for admission in the NRI quota, the applicant is required not only to produce her certificates but also to give the details of the marks obtained by her in the aforesaid subjects. 8. In so far as students like the petitioner are concerned their results having been published only on 31.5.2011, they could have applied only if the applications were accepted thereafter. In so far as the first respondent is concerned, applications were accepted only in March, 2011, though the admissions were closed only on 8.7.2011. This therefore means that virtually students like the petitioner were deprived of their W.P(C) No. 16001 of 2011 5 opportunity to make applications to NRI quota in the first respondent College at least during the year 2011 and this was against the prospectus conditions also. In so far as the case of the college that it was open to the petitioner to apply is concerned, I must say that the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that even if such an application was made, having regard to the prospectus condition, the same would have been defective and rejected on the ground that the application is incomplete. Therefore the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent was, regular. 9. However it is now informed by the petitioner and confirmed by counsel for the first respondent, that the seat filled up by admitting the 7th respondent is remaining vacant as the 7th respondent did not join the College. Therefore, admittedly the seat which this Court had ordered to be kept vacant is still remaining unfilled. In that view of the matter, it is unnecessary to probe into the matter any further or to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition and the petitioner's grievance will be redressed if the first respondent permit her to make an application for admission in the NRI quota, and same is W.P(C) No. 16001 of 2011 6 considered along with the remaining applications if any. 10. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall approach the first respondent and thereupon an application form for admission in the NRI quota shall be issued to her and if the application is submitted without any further delay the same shall be considered along with other applications that are already received by the 1st respondent, The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE rkc //True copy// PA to Judge