B.Chacko v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2015/31ST VAISAKHA, 1937 ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------

1. B.CHACKO T.C.3/624, T.K.D.ROAD, MUTTADA P.O.

PATTOMTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. ABDUL RAFI R.J.VILLA, T.C.19/769G, MUDAVANMUKAL POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. MRS. SUMITHA JOHN MUKALUPARAMBIL VEEDU, KRIPA NAGER, 112A KOTTARAKKARA.

4. MRS. SHEEBA K.

KAUSTHABHAM, T.C.NO.29/405(1), THENGAPURA LINE PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

5. MR. LOUIS MATHEW KALLIVILAYATHIL HOUSE, MANNADI P.O., ADOOR - 691 530. BY ADVS.SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY SRI.JESTIN MATHEW RESPONDENT(S):

--------------

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

2. ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T.C.15/1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDING, MP APPAN ROAD VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

3. MEDICAL COUNSEL OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POCKET-14, SECTOR-8 PHASE-I, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI-110 077.

---------------------------- 2 4.KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O THRISSUR -680 596.

5.MOUNT ZION MEDICAL COLLEGE REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL, CHAYALOD, ADOOR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA - 691 556.

R2 BY SMT.MARY BENJAMIN, SC, ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE R3 BY ADV. SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC, MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY.HEALTH & THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENSUAL AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNENT DATED 15-7-2014. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS ISSUED FOR THE PETITIONER INSTITUTION.

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF EMPLOYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PARENT AJINA ABDUL RAFI.

EXT.P3(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF EMPLOYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PARENT AISHWARYA AJITH.

EXT.P3(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF EMPLOYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PARENT ANUGRAHA MARY JOHN.

EXT.P3(C) - TRUE COPY OF THE PROOF EMPLOYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE PARENT JACOB V.K.

EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE.

EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT INTIMATING THE DECISION IN EXT.P4.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv

K.SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.

---------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.14306 of 2015 ----------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2015

JUDGMENT

Surendra Mohan,J This writ petition is filed by the parents of five students, who have been denied admission to the M.B.B.S course for the year 2014-2015, seeking the following reliefs: i) To issue a writ of Certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to call of the records leading to Exhibit P4 and to quash to the extent of rejection of approval of petitioners wards, who are admitted against 5% Staff Quota, as the dependant's of the staff.

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to register the name of the petitioners wards with the 4th respondent University for completing their courses in M.B.B.S 2014-2015.

iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the cut of marks prescribed for the petitioners wards admitted against the staff quota for MBBS course is highly incorrect and illegal; and iv) To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case.

W.P.(C).No.14306 of 2015

2. According to the counsel for the petitioners, Ext.P1 agreement stipulates that the Management could allot up to a maximum of 5% of seats to the children of staff, management and trustees based on inter se merit. It was in accordance with the above Clause in Ext.P1 agreement that the children of the petitioners were granted admission. But, by Ext.P4, the Admission Supervisory Committee and Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges of Kerala has rejected their admission. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the minimum qualifying marks of 50% is not necessary to be insisted upon, in the case of candidates allotted under the 5% quota as per Ext.P1 agreement. The above contention is opposed by the learned Government Pleader, who points out that in a similar writ petition this Court has rejected the very same contention.

3. Heard. As per judgment dated 06.01.2015 in W.P.(C) No.122 of 2015, another Division Bench of this Court has, while considering a similar contention, held as follows:

W.P.(C).No.14306 of 2015 "10. Therefore, the mere fact that a candidate qualified in the Entrance Examination does not in any manner making him eligible for admission to MBBS or BDS and eligibility for admission is attained only if the standards prescribed in the aforesaid two provisions in the Prospectus are satisfied. This therefore means that only those general candidates who have secured 50% marks and only those SC/ST and OBC candidates who have secured 40% marks in the entrance examination are eligible for admission to MBBS or BDS, even if they qualify in the entrance examination. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel.

11. We also should take note of the fact that the prospectus in question was undoubtedly issued by the Government of Kerala in exercise of its power under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. None of the parties, viz, the Management or the students, challenged the prospectus conditions. Therefore, having accepted the prospectus, this argument now raised is only to be rejected."

4. In view of the above finding, with which we are in respectful agreement, the contention of the petitioners is rejected. In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE Sd/- MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE vdv