High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed

Aravind C v. The State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Gopinath P.
Judgment Date
2023-06-22
Court Decision / Holding
The writ petition fails; the petition is dismissed. The court held that Ext. P10 and P11 do not indicate that the reservation was limited to school students with state awards, the fifth respondent was not disqualified, and he had a higher score justifying his selection.
Final Disposition
Writ petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Aravind C

Respondents

  • The State of Kerala
  • Screening Committee constituted by the Government to BSC [Hons] Agriculture Degree Course
  • Kerala Agricultural University
  • The Registrar, Kerala Agricultural University
  • Saifulla P

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.M. SathyanathA Menon
  • • K.L. Lakshmi Rani

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K.L. Lakshmi Rani
  • • Prasanth Sugathan
  • • Varsha Bhaskar
  • • Anupama Sibi
  • • N.Krishna Ozhakkatan
  • • Sri. VK Sunil

Case Synopsis & Summary

Aravind C v. The State of Kerala and Others is a writ petition challenging the government-aided admission process for B.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture at Kerala Agricultural University. The petitioner contends that Ext. P10, a 3.09.2015 Government Order, reserved one seat in the course for a student who had won state-level agriculture awards, and that the reservation’s scope is limited to such awardees. He argues that the fifth respondent, aged about 32 with multiple degrees, cannot be deemed a “student” eligible for the reserved seat, and that he was selected in preference to the petitioner in contravention of the reservation policy. The respondents maintain that Exts. P10 and P11 do not restrict the reservation to school students with awards, and that the selection was made by an expert committee; the fifth respondent scored higher on the entrance examination, justifying the selection. The court notes Tajvir Sing Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2023) for the principle that where selection involves a high degree of expertise, courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the selection body. After hearing, the judge held that Ext. P10 and P11 do not conclusively show the reservation was limited to school awardees, that the fifth respondent was not disqualified from admission under the reservation, and that his higher marks warranted the outcome; accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O(MS) NO: 142/2015/AGRICULTURE dated 3.09.2015Exhibit P11: Notification No AKADC1/2022/101/42175 dated 5.11.2022

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • When the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion, courts should not substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P10 (G.O.) reserved a seat for state award winners in agriculture and that the fifth respondent—aged around 32 with multiple degrees—cannot be deemed a student eligible for the reserved seat. He argues the reservation was meant to encourage farming among school students and youngsters, and that Exts. P10 and P11 do not show that the reservation is confined to school students with state awards. The petitioner asserts that the fifth respondent’s selection over him was improper given the reservation terms.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend Exts. P10 and P11 do not indicate the reservation is limited to school students with state awards. The selection was done by an expert committee; the fifth respondent scored higher on entrance examination; therefore there is no ground to interfere with the selection.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Tajvir Sing Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir(2023) AIR (SC) 2014PositiveCited to support the proposition that where selection involves a high degree of expertise and discretion, courts should not substitute their judgment for that of the selection committee.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Aravind C v. The State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` ARAVIND C, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O HARIHARAN, MURINGATH HOUSE, AMBALAPPADI, WANDOOR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN – 679 328. BY ADVS. K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON K.L.LAKSHMI RANI ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT & FARMERS' WELFARE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 2SCREENING COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT TO BSC [ HONS] AGRICULTURE DEGREE COURSE, REPRESENTED BY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT & FARMERS' WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. 3KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MAIN CAMPUS, KAU P.O VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 656,REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 4THE REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MAIN CAMPUS, KAU P.O VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 656. 5SAIFULLA P, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PARATHODI HOUSE, KARINJAPATTY VATTALLUR P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676 507. BY ADVS. K.L.LAKSHMI RANI PRASANTH SUGATHAN VARSHA BHASKAR(K/487/2004) ANUPAMA SIBI(K/698/2019) N.KRISHNA OZHAKKANAT(K/1518/2019) SRI. VK SUNIL (SR GP) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ``` ``` 22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023 2 ## JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the selection of the 5[th] respondent to the course in B.Sc (Hons.) Agriculture Course in the Kerala Agriculture University. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that on 03.09.2015 by Ext.P10 Government Order, the Government had reserved one seat in the B.Sc (Hons.) Agriculture Course in the Kerala Agricultural University for a student who had won State level awards in agriculture. It is submitted that a reading of Ext.P10 will clearly show that the reservation was in respect of students who got state awards in agriculture and therefore, the selection of the 5[th] respondent was not proper as the 5[th] respondent cannot at any stretch of imagination be called a student. It is pointed out that the 5[th] respondent already holds several degrees and is aged about 32. It is submitted that on earlier occasions also the reservation was given to students who had obtained state agricultural awards in tune with Ext.P10, which clearly emphasized the fact that the reservation is being provided to encourage interest in farming and farming related activities among school students and other WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023 3 youngsters. It is submitted that taking into consideration the purpose for which reservation is provided, the 5[th] respondent could not have been selected in preference to the petitioner. 3. The learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent would contend that there is nothing in Exts.P10 and P11 which indicate that the reservation was only in favour of school students who obtained state awards in agriculture. It is submitted that the selection of the 5[th] respondent was by an expert committee constituted by the Government. It is submitted that on a comparative analysis of the merit of the petitioner and the 5[th] respondent, the 5th respondent was found more meritorious than the petitioner as 5[th] respondent had obtained higher marks in the entrance examination than the petitioner. It is submitted that in such circumstances, there is no ground upon which the selection of the 5[th] respondent could be interfered with. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent also places reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Tajvir Sing Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2023) AIR (SC)2014], where in connection with the matter of selection to WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023 4 public service, the Supreme Court had reiterated the principle that when the process of selection involves a high decree of expertise and discretion, it is not appropriate for Courts to substitute their judgment for that of a selection committee. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader also submitted that there seems to be nothing in Exts.P10 and P11, which would indicate that only a school student who has obtained state awards in agriculture would be eligible and the mere fact that the 5[th] respondent is aged 32 does not mean that he is not a student. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel for the University and the learned counsel appearing for the 5[th] respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition. The reasons which compel me to take such a view are the following:- - (1) The terms of Ext.P10 Government order and Ext.P11 notification do not indicate that the reservation was in favour of school students who had won State Awards in Agriculture. - (2) The 5[th] respondent was not disqualified in terms of WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023 5 Ext.10 Government order from seeking the reservation prescribed therein either on account of age or on account of the fact that he had gained other qualifications. (3) The 5[th] respondent scored higher than the petitioner in the written examination. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023 6 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15048/2023`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` |`Exhibit P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL`| |---|---| ||`LEAVING CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER`| |`Exhibit P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF`| ||`BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY`| ||`EXAMINATION`| |`Exhibit P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CANDIDATE'S DATA`| ||`SHEET ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR`| ||`ENTRANCE EXAMINATION IN RELATION TO`| ||`ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL DEGREE`| ||`COURSES 2022`| |`Exhibit P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE`| ||`RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FOR`| ||`KERALA GOVERNMENT'S STUDENT FARMER`| ||`TALENT AWARD (VIDHYARTHI KARSHAKA`| ||`PRATHIBHA AWARD) DATED 16.08.2018`| |`Exhibit P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE`| ||`RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FOR BEST`| ||`STUDENT FARMER AT DISTRICT LEVEL`| ||`FROM DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE`| ||`DEVELOPMENT & FARMERS' WELFARE,`| ||`KERALA GOVERNMENT DATED 1.03.2018`| |`Exhibit P6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE`| ||`RECEIVED BY PETITIONER FROM WNADOOR`| ||`GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 17.08.2015`| |`Exhibit P7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE`| ||`ISSUED BY THE MEMBER OF KERALA`| ||`LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, A.P ANIL`| ||`KUMAR, DATED 14.10.2021`| |`Exhibit P8`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE`| ||`ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF WANDOOR`| ||`GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 12.10.2021`| |`Exhibit P9`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES`| ||`FROM THE BOOK HARITHAGADHA ISSUED BY`| ||`THE 1ST RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P10`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS) NO:`| ||`142/2015/AGRICULTURE DATED 3.09.2015`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit P11`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO:`| ||`AKADC1/2022/101/42175 DATED`| ||`5.11.2022`| |`Exhibit P12`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR`| WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023 7 ``` ADMISSION TO B.SC [ HONS] AGRICULTURE COURSE IN KERALA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY DATED 9.11.2022 Exhibit P13A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (MS) NO: 362/2023/AGRI DATED 11.04.2023 Exhibit P14A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO: ACAD C1/2015/101/6021 DATED 18.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P15A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14.03.2023 Exhibit P16A TRUE COPY OF PAPER REPORT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 23.04.2023 ABOUT 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P17A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON 20.03.2023 Exhibit P18A TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER DATED 24-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` |`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`|`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`| |---|---| |`Exhibit R4 (a)`|`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR`| ||`ADMISIION TO BSC (HONS) FOR THE`| ||`ACCADEMIC YEAR OF 2022-2023 DATED`| ||`23/11/2022`| |`Exhibit R4 (b)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE`| ||`SCREENING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON`| ||`20/03/2023`| |`Exhibit R4 (c)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE UNIVERSITY ORDER NO`| ||`ACAD C1/2022/101/42175 DATED`| ||`24/04//2023`| |`Exhibi-R5(a)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED`| ||`BY THE KERALA STATE AGRICULTURE`| ||`DEPARTMENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT`| |`Exhibit R5(b)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED`| ||`BY THE KERALA STATE BIODIVERSITY`| ||`BOARD TO THE 5TH RESPODNENT`| |`Exhibi-R5(c)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED`| ||`BY THE KERALA STATE YOUTH WELFARE`| ||`BOARD TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT`| WP(C) NO. 15048 OF 2023 8 ``` Exhibi-R5(d)TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S CANDIDATE'S DATA SHEET FOR KEAM 2022 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS ```