Amrutharaj P.C. v. Commissioner for Entrance Examination, Mahatma Gandhi University, Controller of Examinations and Principal Holy Kings College

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/12TH AGRAHAYANA 1934** **WP(C).No. 11376 of 2012 (V) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER:** **-------------** **AMRUTHARAJ.P.C., AGED 20 YEARS S/O.CHITRANGADHAN, RESIDING AT SHANMUGHAPURAM PACHALAM, KOCHI.** **BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI** **RESPONDENTS:** **--------------** **1. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SHANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695 001.** **2. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY KOTTAYAM-686 001, REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR.** **3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, KOTTAYAM-686 001.** **4. THE PRINCIPAL HOLLY KINGS COLLEGE, PAMPAKUDA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.686 667.** **R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI JOSEPH GEORGE R2,R3 BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G. UNIVERSITY R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J., SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB (JOSE)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-122012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 11376 of 2012 (V)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MARK SUBMISSION DATA SHEET FOR THE ENGINEERING COURSES 2011 OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT INTIMATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P3 : PHOTOCOPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD AND THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT COLLEGE TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE TIME TABLE FOR THE 1ST YEAR EXAMINATION OF THE PETITIONER EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY HALL TICKET ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **jma** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.11376 of 2012** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** ## **Dated this the 3[rd] day of December, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner, who is a first year student of B.Tech (Computer Science)course held in the 4[th] respondent College, was before this Court challenging the inaction of the 2[nd] respondent University and 3[rd] respondent, Controller of Examination, in issuing a Hall ticket for appearing in the examinations of the I and II semester which was scheduled from 14.5.2012. When the writ petition was moved on 15.5.2012, the 4[th] respondent College had already permitted the petitioner to appear for the examination by issuing Ext.P5 Hall Ticket. Hence, though the learned Standing Counsel sought for time, the petitioner was allowed to appear for the examination provisionally and it was also directed that the results shall be published only after further orders from this Court, by order of even date. 2. The petitioner had appeared in the examination by virtue of the said interim order. Subsequently, the 3[rd] respondent, Controller of Examinations filed a counter WPC.11376/2012 : 2 : affidavit, contending that the non issuance of Hall Ticket by the University was not due to any inaction, as alleged, but by reason of the ineligibility of the petitioner to seek admission to the B.Tech (Computer Science) course. The petitioner's mark list was produced as Ext.R2(a), which clearly indicates that the petitioner had secured only 38.5% marks in Mathematics. As per the prospectus of Kerala Engineering and Medical, 2011 Common Entrance Examination, for being eligible to be considered for being admitted to an Engineering course, a candidate who has passed the Higher Secondary Examination conducted in Kerala or examinations recognized as equivalent thereto should have 50% marks in Mathematics, and also 50% marks in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry put together. This is stipulated by clause 6.2.2(a) of the prospectus; extract of which is produced as Ext.R2(b). Clause 6.2.4 also refers to relaxation of 5% marks in the qualifying examination available to SEBC and OEC candidates. The petitioner admittedly belongs to Dheevara Community and hence is a member of an OEC Community eligible for relaxation of 5% marks in the qualifying examinations. However, that would only mean that the petitioner has to secure 45% marks for Mathematics separately and in WPC.11376/2012 : 3 : aggregate 45% marks in Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. The petitioner falls short of the standard prescribed in so far as having failed to secure 45% marks separately in Mathematics for the Higher Secondary examination. 3. This Court had considered the stipulation of 50% in aggregate and separate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology as has been laid down in the Medical Council of India (Graduate Medical admission) Regulations, 1997. A Division Bench of this Court in **Shamin Sainudheen V. Medical Counsel of India(2010(4) KLT 103)** found that the regulations laid down by the Medical Council of India were mandatory and the stipulation of separate and aggregate mark of 50% in Physics, Chemistry and Biology at the qualifying examination was only to achieve uniform evaluation in a competitive examination. It was held that the Government by making an agreement with self financing Medical Colleges could not get over the regulations of MCI and that an institution cannot admit a student without complying with and against the regulations of MCI. The dual requirement in terms of the MCI regulations for securing aggregate and separate 50% marks in the science subjects were upheld by this Court. The reasoning adopted in the said judgment is WPC.11376/2012 : 4 : squarely applicable in the instant case too. 4. Smt. R.Ranjini, the learned counsel for the petitioner would urge strenuously that this is a case in which the student was a victim of circumstance and also complicity of the respondents. The petitioner had been alloted to the 4[th] respondent College on the basis of the rank obtained in the entrance examination. At the time of admission, the petitioner had submitted the mark list before the 4[th] respondent, which was forwarded to the second respondent University. It was only at the stage of the conduct of the I semester examination, that the University had refused to grant him the Hall Ticket. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the University would contend that it was for the 4[th] respondent College, to verify the mark list and refuse or grant admission. If the candidate was found to be ineligible as per the prospectus the admission could have been denied. No complicity can be alleged on the second respondent since, at the time of allotment the mark list was not available. The University would also contend in their affidavit that the admission granted to a candidate who did not satisfy the essential eligibility condition, is patently illegal and such person cannot be allowed to continue the course. The University had WPC.11376/2012 : 5 : informed the 4[th] respondent College over telephone on 9.5.2012 that the petitioner was found to be ineligible to appear for the examination and continue his course of study. 6. The 4[th] respondent College replied to the University by Ext.R2(e) wherein the Principal takes a contention that the admission was granted to the student only on the strength of the certificate issued by the National Cadet Corps, produced before the College. The University has also produced the said certificate purportedly granting weightage of marks for ranking purpose as Ext.R2(c). Even going by the certificate, the eligibility for concession of marks is confined to the aggregate marks in the qualifying examination. It is also pertinent that the concession in Ext.R2(e), if any available at all, definitely does not take in professional Courses. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner who had appeared for Higher Secondary Examination falls short of the eligibility condition in so far as he failed to acquire 45% marks in Mathematics. That is the stipulation as per the prospectus issued by the Controller of Examination for being eligible for admission to a course in Engineering. The petitioner having applied for and appeared for the competitive examination cannot turn around and say that he was not aware of his WPC.11376/2012 : 6 : ineligibility. The petitioner has also not taken any steps for revaluation or otherwise. He merely relies on the allotment made by the 3[rd] respondent. Such an attitude cannot be countenanced and this Court in any event, is not looking into the complicity of any of the respondents, as that is beyond the scope of the jurisdiction exercised under Article 226. This Court, had, when passing the interim order itself made it clear that the admission to the examination would be provisional and subject to the result of the writ petition. There cannot be any claim of equity on the basis of the continuance in the course on the strength of the interim orders, as held by this Court in **Aneesha Ramesh v. State of Kerala (2011(3) KLT 918)** . On the strength of the above findings, it is to be held that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- ## **(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)** jma //true copy// P.A to Judge