High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

Ashna K v Union of India and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).21528/22

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2022-09-22
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Ashna K

Respondents

  • Union of India
  • The National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS)
  • Megha N Nair
  • Aswathy C. K.
  • Aksa Ajaz Khan
  • Shama Shareen R.
  • Anushka Mona Mittal
  • Ancy Sara Koshy
  • Angshruta Mahanta

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P. Sanjay
  • • A. Parvathi Menon
  • • Biju Meenattoor
  • • Kiran Narayanan
  • • Paul Varghese (Pallath)
  • • P.A. Mohammed Aslam
  • • Prasoon Sunny
  • • Rahul Raj P.
  • • Amrutha M. Nair

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ashna K, a Kerala-based social worker and lecturer, approached the Kerala High Court challenging the admissions process for the Master of Philosophy in Psychiatric Social Work at NIMHANS for 2022-23. After securing 13th rank in the entrance examination on 11 June 2022, she was placed on the waitlist, while the merit list for open merit and reserved categories showed top ranks, including a first rank holder who was not admitted to general merit. The second respondent published the list of provisional selections on 18 June 2022, in which reserved-category candidates were admitted, and several general-category candidates with lower marks filled seats, thereby denying the petitioner an opportunity for admission. The petitioner contends that the admissions were conducted in Bengaluru, with the merit list prepared there and the entire admission process occurring there, and that the decision to allot seats violated merit-based criteria and the reservation policy. She seeks a writ of certiorari to quash Ext. P4 and mandamus to direct the respondents to admit general merit list candidates first, followed by reserved seats, and to treat her as the first eligible candidate in the OBC category. She also prays for consideration of her representations (Exhs. P7, P8) within a specified time frame. The court, however, rejected the challenge on territorial grounds, holding that any cause of action arising from the admission decision did not arise in Kerala, and dismissed the petition.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Cause of action test: whether the facts averred constitute a material essential or integral part of the cause of action (as explained in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim)
  • Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts denial of admission in open/general merit despite a 13th rank, contends the process allocated seats in a manner that protected reserved-category candidates over higher-ranked open-merit candidates, and seeks quashing of Ext. P4 and mandamus to admit candidates from the general merit list first, followed by reserved seats; she also seeks consideration of her representations (Exhs. P7, P8) within a specified time frame.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents rely on the territorial jurisdiction argument, contending that the admission process, merit list, and tests were conducted in Bengaluru and that the cause of action arises there, not in Kerala; accordingly, the petition should be dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim[(2007) 11 SCC 335]PositiveCited and applied to articulate the test that facts must constitute a material essential or integral part of the cause of action to determine territorial jurisdiction.

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 Ashna K v Union of India and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_**WP(C).21528/22**_ 1 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN THURSDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 31ST BHADRA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 21528 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** ASHNA.K AGED 25 YEARS D/O NAZEER KHAN, KANHIRALA HOUSE, MAMPAD (P.O.), NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 542. BY ADVS. P.SANJAY A.PARVATHI MENON BIJU MEENATTOOR KIRAN NARAYANAN PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH) P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM PRASOON SUNNY RAHUL RAJ P. AMRUTHA M. NAIR ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, ROOM NO: 156A, NIRMAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI- 110 011. 2 THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCE (NIMHANS), HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, 3 MEGHA N NAIR, (RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), 12TH RANK, ROLL NO. NIMH221683, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029. 4 ASWATHY C. K., (RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) 15TH RANK, ROLL NO. NIMH223413, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES HOSUR ROAD, _**WP(C).21528/22**_ 2 BENGALURU - 560029. 5 AKSA AJAZ KHAN, (RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) 16TH RANK, ROLL NO. NIMH221368, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029. 6 SHAMA SHAREEN R., (RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) 20TH RANK, ROLL NO. NIMH223576, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029. 7 ANUSHKA MONA MITTAL, (RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) 21ST RANK, ROLL NO. NIMH221874, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029. 8 ANCY SARA KOSHY, (RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) 22ND RANK, ROLL NO. NIMH224153, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029. 9 ANGSHRUTA MAHANTA, (RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) 23RD RANK, ROLL NO. NIMH224610, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560029. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 5.7.2022, THE COURT ON 22.09.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: _**WP(C).21528/22**_ 3 ## **V.G.ARUN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 21528 of 2022 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of September, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner completed her Masters in Social Work in Medicine and Psychiatry from the Pondicherry University and is working as an Assistant Professor in the Social Work Department at the Ideal Arts and Science College, Cheruppulassery. By Exhibit P1 Prospectus, the second respondent initiated admissions for the academic year 202223. The petitioner applied for admission for the course, Master in Philosophy in Psychiatric Work. The petitioner secured 13[th] rank based on her performance in the entrance examination for the M.Phil course conducted on 11.6.2022. On 18.6.2022, the second respondent published the list of candidates provisionally selected for admission to various Post Graduate courses for the academic year 2022-23. To the petitioner’s dismay, her name was included only in the wait list of OBC category candidates. According to the petitioner, as per Exhibit P3 merit list, the person who secured first rank _**WP(C).21528/22**_ 4 has to be admitted first to the unreserved category. Contrary to this, the first rank holder, Ms.Anzila E.K.V was not admitted in the general merit as an open merit candidate. Instead, the second rank holder belonging to the general category was admitted. Likewise, instead of admitting the next 11 candidates from open merit irrespective of their caste, the second respondent admitted the reserved category candidates against the reservation seats and inducted the general category candidates with lesser marks in their place. This resulted in the petitioner being denied the opportunity of admission, even after securing 13[th] rank. Hence this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; - i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P4 and quash the same by the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction; - ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to appoint all candidates from the general merit list in the open category frist and thereafter appoint reserved candidates to the reserved seats under OBC and SC/ST categories. _**WP(C).21528/22**_ 5 iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as the first candidate in OBC category to which she is entitled to as per the rank list; iv) Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider on Exts.P7 and P8 representations and pass orders within a time frame." 2. When the writ petition came up for admission, it was noticed that the second respondent institute is situated in Bengaluru and the online entrance test was also conducted there. Hence, Counsel for the petitioner was called upon to argue on the question of territorial jurisdiction. 3. Learned Counsel contended that the petitioner is residing in Kerala and hence the consequence of the illegal admission procedure adopted by the second respondent is also suffered by her in Kerala. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that the institute is in Bengaluru and the entrance was also held there, the cause of action for filing the writ petition, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. _**WP(C).21528/22**_ 6 4. No doubt, as per Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action wholly or in part arises, notwithstanding that the seat of the authority or the Government, or the residence of the person against whom direction/mandamus is sought, is situated outside the territory of the High Court. The question therefore is whether any part of the cause of action has arisen within Kerala. As held by the Apex Court in _**Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim**_ [(2007) 11 SCC 335], ‘whether the facts averred by writ petitioner constitute a part of cause of action has to be determined on the basis of the question whether such facts constitute a material essential or integral part of the cause of action’. As far as the case at hand is concerned, the admission is to the second respondent institute situated in Bengaluru. The petitioner had appeared for the admission test also at Bengaluru. The merit list was prepared at Bengaluru and the process of admission was undertaken in Bengaluru. Being so, the mere reason that the impact of the denial of admission to her is felt by the petitioner in Kerala, does not give rise to a cause of action, _**WP(C).21528/22**_ 7 as that factor does not constitute a material which forms an essential or integral part of the cause of action. Therefore, writ petition is found to be not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. **V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** _vgs_ _**WP(C).21528/22**_ 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21528/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS - Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PROSPECTUS FOR 2022-23 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE APPLICATION BEARING REGISTRATION NO. NIMH224470 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OVERALL MERIT LIST OF M.PHIL IN PSYCHIATRIC SOCIAL WORK PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LIST OF CANDIDATES PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT INSTITUTE DATED 18/06/2022. - Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE OVERALL MERIT LIST OF M.SC. IN PSYCHIATRIC NURSING PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INSTRUCTION TO PROVISIONALLY SELECTED PG CANDIDATES FOR SESSION 1 ADMISSION FOR THE ANNUAL YEAR 2022-23 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT - Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.06.2022 TO 1ST RESPONDENT. - Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.06.2022 TO 2ND RESPONDENT.