IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24337 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MUHAMMED SHABEER.E , S/O.SIDHEEQUE.E, AGED 17 YEARS, EASPADATH, KUTTAYI, PO.MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 562 REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN FATHIMA. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.M.SHAJNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE PRINCIPAL, THE M.M.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, TIRUR TALUK, KUTTAYI PO 676 562. 4. HABEEBA M.P.AGED 16 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND FATHER USMAN M.P. MAKKALANTE, PURAKKAL, KUTTAYI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 562. 5. NOUSHEERA C.P.AGED 16 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND FATHER ALIKUTTY C. P.CHEMPALLANTE PURAKKAL, KUTTAYI PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 562. BY G.P.SRI.SANDESH RAJA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(c)NO.24337/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR HIGHER SECONDARY SINGLE WINDOW ADMISSION 2010-11. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE SSL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATION, KERALA DATED 3.5.2010. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPLICATION NO.8166362 DATED 11.5.2010 FOR HIGHER SECONDARY SINGLE WINDOW ADMISSION 2010-11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPLICATION NO.8117200 DATED 8.5.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE APPLICATION NO.8117363 DATED 17.5.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATION DATED 23.7.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT, DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION. EXT.P6(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE SECOND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE EDUCATION MINISTER'S OFFICE, OF FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: A TRUE COPYT OF THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DIRECTOR. EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE SSL CERTIFICATE OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATION, KERALA. EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE SSL CERTIFICATE OF THE FIFTH RESPONDENT ISSUED BY BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATION, KERALA. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.24337 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 18th August, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for admission to Higher Secondary Course (plus one) through Single Window System for the year 2010-2011. Ext.P3 is the application submitted by the petitioner which would reveal that his first option was Commerce Group. It would also reveal that Science group and Humanities Group were the second and third options of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his entitlement to get admission to the said course in Commerce Group in terms of Ext.P1 prospectus, he was denied the same and respondents 4 and 5 who were not eligible to get preference over him were given admission to plus one course in Commerce Group. Clause 16 of Ext.P1 is mainly relied on by the petitioner. The manner and method by which Weighted Grade Point Average which is the decisive factor for deciding the entitlement for admission is explained in Clause 16 of Ext.P1 prospectus. It reads thus: 16. NkSvwjoLjh¼U @ WGPA We¨L¨OÐfV KLSqL v]h|L¡À]pORapOU WGPA (Weighted Grade Point Average) We¨L¨]pLeV NkSvwj¾]jOç A¡zf j]ép]¨OÐfV. AfV We¨L¨OÐ v]iU fLRu RWLaO¨OÐO. WP(C).No.24337/2010 2 *Bh|U SpLY|fLkq}WVxp]¤ KLSqL v]xp¾]jOU ASkWVxWjV sn]\ÿ SNYcOW¥¨V fLRu yP\]Õ]¨OU NkWLqU SNYcV SkLp]¢rV j¤WOÐO. SNYcV A+ A B+ B C+ C D+ SNYcV SkLp]¢rV 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 * v]v]i v]xp°¥¨V sn]\ÿ]ŸOtt SNYcV SkLp]¢rOWtORa TGP (SaLŸ¤ SNYcV SkLp]¢rV) We¨L¨OÐO (DhLzqe¾]jV k¾V v]xp°¥¨OU A+ SNYcOW¥ sn]\ÿ v]h|L¡À]pORa TGP 90 Bp]q]¨OU). * zp¡ Ry¨¢rr] kbj¾]jV v]h|L¡À] RfqR´aO¨OÐ v]xp SWLUm]SjxjOW¥¨jOyq]\ÿV SpLY|fL Õq}WVxp]Rs \]s v]xp°¥¨V Rvp]Sã^V sn]¨OU. RfqR´aO¨OÐ v]xp SWLUm]SjxjOoLp] mÌoOç IyV. IyV. I¤. y]. SkÕrOW¥¨LeV C°Rj Rvp]Sã^V sn]¨OÐfV. zp¡ Ry¨¢rr] p]Rs 45 SWLuõV SWLUm]SjxjOW¥¨V Rvp]Sã^V sn]¨OÐ IyV.IyV. I¤. y]. v]xp°tORa v]whLUw°¥ X¼]W 18 ¤ yP\]Õ]\ÿ]q]¨OÐO. C°Rj Rvp]Sã^V sn]¨OÐ v]xp°tORa SNYcV V SkLp]¢rOW¥ NkSf|WU WPŸOÐO. CfLeV GSW (total Grade value of Subjects for which Weightage is given) *X¼]W 11¤ yP\]Õ]\ÿ]q]¨OÐ SmLeyV SkLp]¢rOW¥ (A¡zfpORºË]¤) We¨L¨OÐO (BP). X¼]W 12 NkWLqU WOrSàº RRojyV SkLp]¢rOWtORºË]¤ AfOU WRº¾OÐO (MP). *Cj] fLRu¨Le]\ÿ]q]¨OÐ yPNf vLW|oOkSpLY]\ÿV WGPA JuV hwLUwòLj¾]jV WQf|oLp] WRº¾OÐO . TGP + GSW + BP - MP WGPA = ------------------------ TS + TSW WP(C).No.24337/2010 3 Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 came out successful in the SSLC examination in their first attempt and therefore there is no scope for awarding any minus point. Therefore, the Weighted Grade Point Average has to be calculated in the case of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 in terms of the formula that has given under clause 16. The petitioner has specifically worked out the marks that could be awarded to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 by applying the above formula. It would reveal that in case of the petitioner the WGPA would be 7.727 and in the case of respondents 4 and 5 it would be 7.454 and 6.909 respectively. It is taking into account the aforesaid aspects and that in case the specific averment of the petitioner is taken as correct, it would result in unseating either respondent 4 or 5, this Court as per order dated 5.8.2010 ordered to issue notice by Special Messenger to respondents 3 to 5. It was also made clear in the order that the finalisation of the allotment and admission in respect of the third respondent's school, as per Ext.P1 prospectus, would be provisional and subject to the result of the writ petition. In fact, it is provisional with respect to the admission granted to respondents 4 and 5. Despite the receipt of notice in this proceedings respondents 3 to 5 did not enter appearance in this writ petition. I have already referred to Ext.P1 prospectus and more WP(C).No.24337/2010 4 particularly clause 16 thereunder. It would reveal that WGPA (Weighted Grade Point Average) is the decisive factor that would decide the entitlement for admission. The specific averment of the petitioner that he is having more WGPA than respondents 4 and 5 is not disputed by respondents 4 and 5. In fact, they did not even appear despite receipt of notice in this proceedings. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is only to be accepted. Once it is accepted, the inescapable conclusion could only be that the petitioner is entitled to get admission to plus one course in MMM Higher Secondary School, Tirur in Commerce group (Business Studies, Accountancy, Economics, Computer Application- Weightage subject Mathematics) in preference to respondents 4 and 5. As noticed earlier, in the case of the petitioner, the Commerce group was his first choice, whereas in the case of respondents 4 and 5 it was their second option. In spite of his entitlement to get admission in the first option, i.e. in Commerce group the petitioner was given admission only in Humanities Group which was his third option. In the case of the fifth respondent it was her third option and taking into account the aforesaid position obtained in this case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get relief in this writ petition. WP(C).No.24337/2010 5 Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate steps to ensure and effect admission of the petitioner in Commerce group (Business Studies, Accountancy, Economics, Computer Application- Weightage subject Mathematics) in preference to respondents 4 and 5. It is made clear that in case implementation of this direction would entail ouster of respondent 4 or 5 subject to their entitlement, the concerned person may be considered for admission in Humanities Group against the resultant vacancy. This shall be done with notice to the third respondent within a period of two weeks from today. C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS