IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY THURSDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1932 WA.No. 1936 of 2010() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. 14731/2010 IN WPC.31742/2009 Dated 27/10/2010 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P. --------------------------------- 1. NISHA THOMAS,AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.T.K.THOMAS,RESIDING AT THACHIL HOUSE, NEAR WEST CHURCH,ANGAMALY.P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683572. 2. BIBI BABU,AGED 18 YEARS,D/O.BABU GOERGE, RESIDING AT BLESSY VILLA,MANJADITHARA,PALLICKAL.PO KAYAMKULAM,PIN-690 503. 3. BENCY BABU,AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.BABU GEORGE,RESIDING AT BLESSY VILLAGE, MANJADITHARA,PALLICAL.P.O,KAYAMKULAM,PIN-690503. 4. ASWATHY.A.S,AGED 18 YEARS, D/O.SUDHANA BABU,RESIDING AT POOVANGAL HOUSE, MANAYIL,PANMANA.P.O,CHAVARA,KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691583. 5. SONIYA JOHNY,AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.O.V.JOHNY,RESIDING AT OOMELIL HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLY.P.O,THIRUVANKULAM(VIA), THRIPUNITHURA-682305. 6. ELGI.M.C,AGED 19 YEARS, D/O.CHERIAN PAULOSE,RESIDING AT MANICHERIL HOUSE, VATTALOOR.P.O,PADAPPARAMBA,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676507. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P. ---------------------------------- 1. THE INDIRA GANDHI COLLEGE OF NURSING, A UNIT OF THE COCHIN CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITALS SOCIETY LTD NO. E 288,GANDHI NAGAR,KOCHI-682020, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL. 2. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER FOR R1 G.P. SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1936 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of November, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that appellants are liable to pay fee at the rate applicable to NRI students as against the claim of the appellants that they are eligible to be treated as students admitted under the general category in management quota. We have heard Senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar appearing for the appellants and Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. 2. The appellants' case is that they sought admission for B.Sc. Nursing course under the management quota in the general category. The appellants were admitted for B.Sc. Nursing course by the first respondent in July 2008 and each one of them paid Rs.2,02,500/- which includes one year full fees applicable to NRI students. The case of the appellants is that for later years they did not expect the management to demand same rate of fees. However, when the management demanded W.A. No.1936/2010 2 fees at same rate for succeeding years under the NRI quota, Writ Petition was filed in November 2009 challenging the demand of fees by the first respondent at the rate applicable to students admitted under the NRI quota. However, the first respondent produced application submitted by the appellants for admission to the course wherein it is specifically stated that admission was sought by each one of them under the NRI quota. Therefore, first respondent's case is that admission sought and given is under the NRI quota and the same is permissible under Ext.R1(e) which is an agreement executed between first respondent and the Government. 3. Before us, Senior counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in P.A.INAMDAR & OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS reported in 2005(6) SCC 537 and contended that admission to NRIs should be given only to students depending on NRIs. The appellants' case is that none of them belong to NRI category and they hail from very poor families. We are in W.A. No.1936/2010 3 complete agreement with the contention of the appellants' counsel that the admissions given to appellants under NRI quota is an irregular and illegal action by the first respondent. However, the question to be considered is whether the appellants after taking the benefit of an illegal or irregular act of the first respondent should be allowed to challenge the same after two and a half years of continuing in the course. Admittedly appellants do not come within the merit quota of 50%. The remaining 50% quota is allotted to the management to be filled up, 35% under general quota which again is based on rank in the merit list and balance 15% for admission under the NRI quota. The appellants have not challenged the admission given under the management quota which is upto 35% based on merit and they cannot be permitted to challenge the admissions without making the candidates who got admission in that quota, as parties in the Writ Petition. On the other hand, the claim made by the appellants is that their admission should be treated as made in management quota under W.A. No.1936/2010 4 general category. We do not think this court can grant such a relief because the general quota of 35% is admittedly filled up with candidates in the merit list. First respondent obviously gave admission to the appellants under the NRI quota, though they do not fall under that category. Even though Senior counsel for the appellants submitted that applications were filled up by the first respondent, we are unable to accept the same because besides the request for admission in the application under the NRI quota, the appellants have remitted full amount of fee at the rate applicable to NRI students for the first year. This conduct coupled with an entry in the application clearly go to show that admission sought for and granted is under the NRI category, no matter whether appellants fall under that category or not. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal. However, we feel since the appellants hail from poor families, they should be given instalment facility to clear the arrears of fees that have fallen due until now. We direct the first respondent to grant six equal bimonthly W.A. No.1936/2010 5 instalments for clearing the arrears i.e. the differential fees to be paid over the amounts paid under interim orders of this court. The appellants will be allowed to continue on payment of fees applicable to NRI students. Considering the hardship expressed by the appellants, we feel first respondent should consider some reduction in fees which could be granted not only to the appellants, but to other poor students. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BHABANI PRASAD RAY Judge pms