IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20533 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SACHIN RAMESH,S/O.N.RAMESH,ADVOCATE, AGED 18 YEARS, ELAVUMKAL HOUSE,COLLEGE ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA-686661. BY ADVS. MR.K.JAJU BABU MRS.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI MR.BRIJESH MOHAN MRS.DHANYA CHANDRAN MR. T.S. SHYAMPRASANTH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES(NUALS),KALOOR,KOCHI 682 017, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE CONVENER,COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST (CLAT)-2010,NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY, KERWA DAM ROAD,BHOPAL-462 044. ADV. MR.M.VIVEK FOR ADDL.R3 MR.M.Y.XAVIER MR. BENOY K. KADAVANA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH W.P.(C)NO.21521 OF 2010 ON 16/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 20533 of 2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF INFORMATION BROCHURE FOR CLAT 2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF APPLIATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 24.3.2010 FOR COMMON LAW ADMISSION TEST – 2010. EXT.P2(a): COPY OF CLAT 2010 UNDER GRADUATE PROVISIONAL MERIT LIST. EXT.P3: COPY OF NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 3.6.2010. EXT.P4; COPY OF PROFORMA WITH ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ADMISSION TO B.A.LL.B.(HONS.) DEGREE COURSE AGAISNT RESERVED SEATS. EXT.P5: COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF FINAL INSTITUTIONAL ALLOTMENT LIST PUBLISHED BY R2 FOR R1. EXT.P6: COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.NUALS/CLAT/2010 DTD 19.6.2010 ISSUED BY R1. EXT.P7: COPY OF NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY R2 IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS TO UG CANDIDATES. EXT.P8: COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITONER BEFORE R1 DTD 29.6.2010. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXT.R1(a): COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R1 DTD 15.6.2010. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF LETTER SENT BY R1 DTD 25.6.2010. EXT.R1(c): LETTER SENT BY R1 DTD 3.7.2010 IN COMPLIANCE OF INTERIM ORER OF THIS COURT DTD 1.7.2010. EXT.R1(d): REPLY SENT BY R2 DTD 5.7.2010. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) Nos.20533 & 21521 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in both these writ petitions are aspirants for admission to L.L.B. Course of the first respondent University. Both petitioners belong to 'Ezhava' community and seek admission in the seat reserved for Other Backward Class candidates. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.21521/2010, namely, Ms.Neenu Pavithran is the first among the 'Ezhava' candidates yet to get admission and the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.20533/10 is the next in line, as per the rank secured by them in the Common Law Entrance Test. One seat is vacant in the category reserved for 'Ezhava' candidates. In these writ petitions both claim admission to that seat. 2. A statement has been filed by the first respondent taking the stand that as per the direction of the second respondent, who has conducted the common law admission test, one Ms. Sneha R. Krishnan is to be admitted. W.P.(c)No.20533/10 & Con.case 2 Admittedly, Ms. Sneha R. Krishnan is far below in rank than the petitioners. The second respondent take that stand only because of some technical reasons as regards production of documents the first respondent submits that the reason stated by the second respondent for overlooking the petitioners is also not correct. Therefore, according to the first respondent, going by the rank obtained by the parties in the Common Law Entrance Test, Ms. Neenu Pavithran is the most eligible candidate. But they can go only as per the instructions of the second respondent. However, the first respondent would submit that they would abide by the orders of this Court in the matter. 3. I have heard the parties. In so far as Ms. Neenu Pavithran is the highest among the three in the rank among Ezhavas, in the Common Law Admission Test, I am of opinion that she should be preferred for admission. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the first respondent to give admission to Ms. Neenu Pavithran to the vacant seat. 4. Master Sachin Ramesh the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20533/10 takes the contention that he should be given admission to one of the seats reserved for other backward W.P.(c)No.20533/10 & Con.case 3 candidates which were not filled up for want of candidates. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent points out that as per the prospectus issued for admission, this is not possible. In Ext.P1 prospectus, it is specifically provided thus: “Seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes shall be inter-changeable. In case sufficient candidates are not available for seats reserved for SC/ST,OBC or PWD, such seats shall be filled up under open merit quota”. That being so, the vacant seat has to be filled up in the open merit quota. In fact, the learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the vacant seats have already been filled up from the open merit quota. In the above circumstances, I am unable to countenance that prayer of Master Sachin Ramesh. Therefore he cannot be directed to be given admission and his writ petition has to fail. These writ petitions are disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(c)No.20533/10 & Con.case 4 W.P.(c)No.20533/10 & Con.case 5