IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 787 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.37397/2008 Dated 16/02/2009 .................... APPELLANT: (PETITIONERS IN THE WPC) -------------------------------------- SANDRA P., AGED 18 YEARS, D/O. SRI.PREMANAND S., RESIDING AT 1/3870 A, 'SREEKRIPA', EAST HILL ROAD, P.O.WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 005. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN-682 022, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND ACADEMIC ADMISSIONS UNIT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN-682 022. 3. ASWIN K.M., 1ST SEMESTER STUDENT, B.TECH (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY), SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, CUSAT, THRIKKAKARA. BY ADV.SRI.K.S.MOHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. ------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.787 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph,J. Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed praying for cancellation of admission of the 3rd respondent in the Information Technology Branch of Engineering in the School of Engineering, Cochin University and for admission to the petitioner in that vacancy. At the outset it is to be noted that the admission is for the academic year 2008-09. The admissions were closed on 17-12-2008 and the students have completed two semesters. The writ petitioner is ranked No.12377 in the Common Admission Test and the 3rd respondent is 11386. The 3rd respondent was admitted in the College of Engineering, Pulinkunnu affiliated to the Cochin University in the Information Technology branch under the category of W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:2:- OBH - Other Backward Hindus. He was also included in the waiting list for admission to the same branch in the School of Engineering , Thrikkakara with option No.2 and wait list No.4. While so, there arose a vacancy in the School of Engineering, Thrikkakara in the OBH category and the selection was notified as per Ext.P6. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the 3rd respondent had already been admitted in the Information Technology branch in the College of Engineering at Pulinkunnu, he should not have been given another opportunity to opt for another centre. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that Ext.P3 instructions to candidates permitted the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner has come up in writ appeal. 2. Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, leaned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant/petitioner submits that going by Ext.P3 instruction to candidates, once a candidate is admitted in a branch of Engineering in any college under the Cochin University, that candidate does not have an opportunity to opt W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:3:- either for another branch or for a different centre. In order to appreciate the contention it is necessary to refer to the instruction, to the extent relevant. Paragraph B of Ext.P3 deals with counselling which reads as follows:- B. Counselling. At the counselling desk, the candidates can view on the computer monitor the different branches the types ('free' and/or 'payment') and the categories (general/reservation etc.) of seats available to them at the particular instant and select the course of their choice. A choice, once confirmed, shall be irrevocable and no change whatsoever shall be permitted. However, he/she can submit options as per the procedure prescribed below, under “options”. Candidates who do not accept any or all of the seats available and offered to them at the time of counselling will be required to submit a declaration jointly with their parent/guardian to the effect that they are voluntarily relinquishing their claims to the W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:4:- said seats offered to them. Candidates refusing to submit this undertaking will not be permitted to move over to the next stage of the counselling process. Paragraph E deals with options. To the extent relevant it reads as follows:- E. Options. Candidates called for counselling will be given the facility to exercise up to a maximum of ten options. Options in the order of preference can be indicated by writing numbers from 1 to 10, against the concerned course codes. The decoding of the programme codes in the option form is as follows. The first two alphabets indicate the branch, the third digit is to the campus (1-for Thrikkakara and 2- for Pulinkunnu campus) and the fourth alphabet indicates category (F-for free seats and P-for Payment seats). For e.g. SF TP means B.Tech. Safety and Fire Engg. in Thrikkakara campus under payment seats W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:5:- and ME:2F means Mechanical Engg. in Pulinkunnu campus under free seats. xx xx The option facility will not be available for programmes in which vacant seatsare available to the candidate at the time of his/her counselling. Intra-branch movements, i.e., from “Payment” to “Free” seats, or vice-versa within the same branch, shall be possible only through the exercise of appropriate options. Cancellation of admission, for whatever reasons, will result in automatic cancellation of all options exercised, if any, by the candidate. 'Option forms' will be available from the 'Option forms counter'. Duly filled up 'Option forms' may be deposited in the box provided at the Counselling venue or may be sent to the IRAA Unit by post on or before the last date and time specified. It shall be the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that the filled-up 'Option forms' reach the IRAA W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:6:- Unit on or before the stipulated date. Filled- up 'Option forms' received after the last date will be rejected and no further correspondence/queries will be entertained on this score. Illegible/erroneous/improper/ feeble markings and/or failure to enter appropriate data in the 'Option forms' will result in the cancellation of all options for which the University will not be responsible. Filled-up 'Option forms' that do not indicate the different options sequentially commencing from “1” will be rejected. Paragraph F deals with cancellation of options, which reads as follows:- F. Cancellation of Options. Candidates admitted or shifted to any particular branch by virtue of options exercised by him/her at the time of counselling shall have to accept such admission/updation. However, he/she will be permitted to cancel his/her remaining options (if any) within five days of being admitted/updated. W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:7:- Requests for partial cancellation of higher options will not be entertained. A conjoint reading of the instructions would make it amply clear that the choice exercised by a candidate at the time of his counselling does not become final; the candidate is free to submit options. If the contention of the learned Senior Counsel is accepted, a candidate who has attended the counselling and who is offered the last of his choice, he will have to satisfy himself with that choice and with the place. Even if a vacancy is available subsequently either in the place of his choice or in the branch of his choice, he has no scope since his fate had been sealed by the first and only opportunity. Such an approach would be against the very concept of higher options. The contention that option is available only to a candidate who does not accept the first opportunity for choice of a branch or a place cannot also be appreciated. The candidate is obviously taking a risk if such a declaration is given. Having been called for counselling, if W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:8:- any other option of branch or place is not available, the candidate would loose one year. That is not the scheme of the instructions. Under the scheme of “higher options” a candidate can always look forward to a vacancy arising in the order of his preference either in the place or in the branch. That is fairly clear from paragraph E itself wherein it is provided that the option facility will not be available for programmes in which vacant seats are available to the candidate at the time of his counselling. A candidate who is called for counselling is entitled to indicate his choice of branch or place in the order of preference and as and when vacancies are available in the branch or place, according to his order of preference, he is entitled to go for such a higher option. 3. Yet another contention is that option is only for a branch (programme) and not for a place. Learned Standing Counsel submits that College of Engineering at Pulinkunnu is self-financing whereas school of Engineering is a University W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:9:- Centre directly run by the Cochin University of Science and Technology. Apparently the options would include such options of places also since it is a higher option from self financing college to a University Centre. It is a matter of common parlance that options would include options for academic institutions of excellence in the scheme of higher option. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. S.R.BANNURMATH, Chief Justice KURIAN JOSEPH, Judge ahg. W.A.No.787 of 2009 -:10:- S.R.BANNURMATH, C.J. & KURIAN JOSEPH,J. --------------------------- W.A.No.787 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 11th June, 2009