IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 23471 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NILUFER P.P., POKKARAPPADA HOUSE, KALPENI ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP, PIN-682 557. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682 555. 3. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR ALLOTMENT OF SEATS FOR HIGHER STUDIES REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KAVARATTI. 4. THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 5. JABEER M.P., MAYAMPUVAKKADA HOUSE, KILTAN ISLAND, LAKSHADWEEP. ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB, SC, KERALA AGRI UNIVER FOR R4 SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R5 SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.23471/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO NOMINATION OF STUDENTS APPLYING UNDER THE LAKSHADWEEP QUOTA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DT 13.11.2009. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CHECK LIST OF VARIOUS CANDIDATES CONTAINING INTER ALIA THEIR MARKS AND COURSES OPTED FOR. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SELECT LIST DT 24.6.2010. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.20392/2010 DT 30.6.2010. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT 5.7.2010 FROM THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KAVARATTI. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.4/33/2010-EDM (AW) DT 19.7.2010 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 23471 OF 2010 () ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P1 in this writ petition contains rules for selecting candidates for nomination against seats reserved by the Lakshadweep Administration for higher studies and also the rules for selection of candidates for MBBS seats in the seats allocated to the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. In so far as it is relevant, in the rules for selecting candidates, for nomination against seats reserved for higher studies, Clause 19 provided that “candidates who have passed qualifying examination in a year prior to the year of selection shall be eligible to apply for selection to the current year”. Ext.P2 is the notification issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications from among eligible and willing candidates for admission to various Degree/Diploma training/Professional courses including for appearing in the entrance test for MBBS/BDS and Engineering Courses during 2010-11. Clause 5 inter alia provided that “students who are appearing for their final examination during 2009-10 are also eligible to apply”. WPC No. 23471/10 :2 : 2. The petitioner, a resident of Lakshadweep, having completed her plus two course in the year 2007-08 applied for admission to Bachelor of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry in a seat reserved for the residents of Lakshadweep. Ext.P3 is the checklist of the applicants. In Ext.P3, the name of the petitioner was included at Sl.No.97. However, when Ext.P4 final list was published, petitioner's name did not find a place. Petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P4 to the extent her name was excluded. In WP(C) NO.20392/10 filed by the petitioner, this Court by Ext.P5 judgment directed consideration of her appeal. Her appeal was accordingly considered by the 1st respondent and the same was rejected by Ext.P7 order. It is challenging Ext.P7, the writ petition is filed. 3. A reading of Ext.P7 order, particularly para 2 shows that, according to the 1st respondent, as per Clauses 19 of Ext.P1 rules, for allotment of seats in a particular academic year, only those candidates who have passed the qualifying examination in the year prior to the year of selection are eligible. It is stated that by Clause 5 of Ext.P2, the eligibility provided in Ext.P7 has been extended to the students who have appeared for the final WPC No. 23471/10 :3 : examination during 2009-10 also. On this basis, 1st respondent upheld the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the reason that the petitioner was ineligible on the ground that she completed her plus two course in the year 2007-08. It is calling in question the said view taken in Ext.P7, the writ petition is filed. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the provisions of Clause 19 of Ext.P1 read with Clause 5 of Ext.P2, candidates who have passed the qualifying examination in the previous years, including those who have appeared for final examination during the year 2009-10, are eligible to apply, and that therefore, the view taken in Ext.P7 confining the eligibility to only those who have passed the examination in the year 2009-10 is erroneous. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and the counsel appearing for the 5th respondent contested the claim of the petitioner. According to them, the effect of the provisions of Clause 19 of Ext.P1 and Clause 5 of Ext.P2 is that only those who have passed in the qualifying examination in the year immediately preceding the year in relation to which the prospectus was issued and those who WPC No. 23471/10 :4 : appeared for the final examination in the academic year 2009-10 and whose results are not declared are eligible. According to counsel, it was in view of this that Clause 10 of Ext.P1 provided that for production of mark lists within 15 days of declaration of results. 6. In the light of the contentions raised by both sides, all that arises for consideration is whether in terms of the provisions contained in Ext.P1, the Rules for selection of candidates for nomination against seats reserved by the administration and Ext.P2, the notification inviting applications, eligibility is to be confined only to candidates who have passed the qualifying examination in the immediate previous year of admission and the year 2009-10. A decision on this issue will depend upon the relevant provisions of Exts.P1 and P2. The first sentence of Clause 19 of Ext.P1 reads as under; “Candidates who have passed qualifying examination in a year prior to the year of selection shall be eligible to apply for selection to the current year.” 7. Similarly, the fist sentence in Clause 5 of Ext.P2 notification reads as under; WPC No. 23471/10 :5 : “Candidates who are appearing for their final examination during 2009-10 are also eligible to apply.” 8. Thus, as per Ext.P1 rules for selection, candidates who have passed the qualifying examination in an year prior to “a year of selection”. This would indicate that eligibility conferred is not confined only to candidates who have passed the qualifying examination in the immediately preceding year, but on those who have passed in the previous years. It would appear from Ext.P2 that the attempt made was to clarify that candidates who are appearing for their final year examination during the current year namely 2009-10 and awaiting results also are eligible to apply. Therefore, none of these provisions of Exts.P1 and P2 restrict eligibility only to candidates who have passed the qualifying examination in the immediately preceding year and those appearing for the examination in the current year. If that be so, the only inference that is possible is that candidates who have passed in the previous years as also the candidates who are appearing for the final examination during the current year are rendered eligible by virtue of the provisions contained in Clauses 19 and 5 of Exts.P1 and P2 respectively. WPC No. 23471/10 :6 : 9. It would also appear that the candidates also have understood the effect of the provisions of Exts.P1 and P2 in the above manner. This is evident from Ext.P3 check list, which shows that applications were received from candidates who have passed out the qualifying examinations in 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-2010 as well. It is interpreting these provisions of Exts.P1 and P2 that the respondents have taken the view that only the candidates who have passed out in the year preceding the year of selection and the candidates who have appeared for the qualifying examination in the year 2009-10 shall apply. 10. In my view, that view taken by the respondents and which has been confirmed in Ext.P7 appellate order passed by the 1st respondent is erroneous and illegal. For that reason, I am inclined to uphold the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was eligible to have been considered for allotment in terms of the provisions contained in Exts.P1 and P2. Necessarily therefore, Ext.P4 final list will have to be modified. This the respondents shall do and on that basis, the allotments will have to be made. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of quashing WPC No. 23471/10 :7 : Ext.P7 and directing the respondents to recast Ext.P4 rank list and on that basis allot the eligible candidates who has applied for the course of Bachelor in Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondents for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp