IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35985 of 2010(W) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- EMMANUEL COLLEGE, VAZHICHEL, KUDAPPANAMOOD.P.O, NEYYATINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 510, REPRESENTED BY MANAGER, MSNGR: FR. G. CHRISTUDAS. BY ADVS. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR, LBS CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 3. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 4. PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SC, LBS CENTRE , R3 BY SRI. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, S.C, K. UTY., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35985 of 2010 W ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a Self Financing B.Ed Training College. In this writ petition, their main grievance is against Ext.P5 notification issued by the fourth respondent for the purpose of making spot admissions to the vacant seats in their College. According to the petitioner, since admissions based on Ext.P1 prospectus have already been completed, there cannot be any spot admission as proposed in Ext.P5 and that the same is in violation of the provisions contained in the prospectus. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the learned Standing Counsel, for filling up merit seats, the second respondent conducted two regular allotments and two spot admissions and that thereafter, the seats, which were still lying vacant, were reported to the W.P.(C) No.35985/10 : 2 : Government. It is stated that, considering the report, the Government issued Ext.P4 order permitting to filling up of vacancies as lapsed seats. It is also stated that the position was clarified in Ext.P7, ordering that such seats in the Self Financing College can be filled up as management seats. It is also pointed out that, in Ext.P7 it was also directed to the Principals of all Government Colleges to initiate necessary action to fill up vacant seats adhering strictly to the existing Rules and Regulations. It is stated that, in pursuance to Ext.P4, as clarified in Ext.P7, the third respondent issued Ext.P5 for conducting spot admissions to the seats which are even now laying vacant. 3. As far as the apprehension of the petitioner that in pursuance to Ext.P5 if students, who are already admitted in their College, secure admission in the third respondent College, the authorities will compel the petitioner to transfer the fee already collected is concerned, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent points out that such a W.P.(C) No.35985/10 : 3 : contingency has already been taken care of in Clause 13.4.3 of Ext.P1 prospectus, which provides that the fee collected from candidates will be transferred to the College, where the candidates stand admitted at the time of closing of admissions. It is stated that admission made on the strength of Exts.P4 and P7 is outside Clause 13.4.3 and, therefore, will not result in transfer of fee as contemplated therein, unless the management willingly do so. 4. Thus, spot admission as per Exts.P4 and P7 is governing to seats, which are lying even now vacant. If, with the concurrence of the Government, the college authorities have taken steps to fill up such seats, such action of the college authorities cannot be said to be in violation of the terms of the prospectus. The only prejudice that the petitioner can claim is a student where the fee already collected is required to be transferred. Now, as pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, such a situation will not arise in view of Clause 13.4.3. of the prospectus. In that view of the W.P.(C) No.35985/10 : 4 : matter, there is nothing illegal in the spot admission proposed. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge