High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed.
Jaya Sivaraman & Gayathri P. Nair v. Director of Education, Department of Education Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep and others
Case / Petition Number:WPC.No. 22925 of 2011 (M)
Neutral Citation:/null
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- V. Chitambaresh
- Judgment Date
- 2012-02-07
- Court Decision / Holding
- Writ petition fails and is hence dismissed.
- Final Disposition
- Writ petition dismissed.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Jaya Sivaraman
- Gayathri P. Nair
Respondents
- The Director of Education, Department of Education Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep
- The Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti, Rep. by its Administrator
- Higher Education Selection Board, Department of Education Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep
- Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, 5th Floor, Housing Board Buildings, Shanti Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
- Government Medical College, Kozhikode, represented by the Dean
- Midhun P, S/O. BITHRA M.P, Athira Daiva Purakkal Road, Kundannoor, Maradu, Kochi-682304
- State of Kerala, represented by Chief Secretary to Govt., Secretariat Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Adv. Sri. M.P. Ashok Kumar
Counsels for Respondents
- • S. Radhakrishnan, SC, Lakshadweep Administration
- • K.R.B. Kaimal (Sr.)
- • B. Unnikrishna Kaimal
- • Lilly K.T., Government Pleader
Case Synopsis & Summary
This writ petition challenges the admission of a candidate under the Lakshadweep quota reserved for Kerala-origin settlers to the MBBS course at Calicut Medical College. Ext.P5 (the Government of Kerala prospectus for 2011) provides that nominees from Lakshadeep who are of Kerala origin, sponsored by the Lakshadweep Administration, are eligible for seats reserved for Lakshadeep, with distribution in Annexure II–VII. The petition contends that the second petitioner, who studied Plus Two in Lakshadweep, was more qualified than the sixth respondent, who studied at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kochi, and that the last date of application should have favored the former. The court, however, dismisses the petition on several grounds. First, it holds that the petition lacks essential parties, citing K.H. Siraj v High Court of Kerala & Others. Ext.R6(q) shows the sixth respondent placed first in the rank list, and even if his admission is set aside, the petitioner could not secure admission. Second, admissions must be completed within a time-frame; Mridul Dhar v Union of India prescribes a cut-off date of 30-09-2009, and the sixth respondent began studying MBBS on 20-08-2011 (Ext.R6(u)). Third, both candidates cannot claim settled Lakshadeep status; however, the sixth respondent’s Lakshadweep exposure was given weightage (Ext.R6(r)); the authorities’ decision to prefer the sixth respondent cannot be faulted. Consequently, the court declines jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismisses the writ petition.
Provisions of Law Cited
Clause 4.1.11 (IV) of Ext.P5 Prospectus (2011)Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal in writ petitions (as per K.H. Siraj v High Court of Kerala & Others)
- Cut-off date for admission as per Mridul Dhar v Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 65
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Petitioners contended that the Lakshadeep quota is to be reserved for Kerala-origin settlers; the second petitioner was more qualified under Ext.P5; the sixth respondent’s admission should be annulled and the seat reallocated; they argued the last date and eligibility criteria as per the prospectus and sought relief under Article 226.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents argued that the sixth respondent is eligible under the Lakshadeep quota since she is Kerala-origin settled in Lakshadweep and weighed by Lakshadweep-based schooling; the top rank in Ext.R6(q) and weightage justification support the allocation; cut-off date rules per Mridul Dhar apply; hence, petition should fail.
Cited Precedents (2)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala & Others | 2006 (2) KLJ (SC) 344 | Positive | Cited to illustrate that failure to implead necessary parties in a writ petition is fatal. |
| Mridul Dhar v. Union of India | (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 65 | Positive | Cited to support the prescribed cut-off date for admission (30-09-2009). |
Diagnostic Tool
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 Jaya Sivaraman & Gayathri P. Nair v. Director of Education, Department of Education Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti, Lakshadweep 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 V.CHITAMBARESH**
**TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/18TH MAGHA 1933**
## **WPC.No. 22925 of 2011 (M)**
**-------------------------**
**PETITIONER(S):**
**-----------------------**
**1. JAYA SIVARAMAN, POST GRADUATE TEACHER GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAVARATTI LAKSHADWEEP.**
**2. GAYATHRI P.NAIR, C/O.JAYA SIVARAMAN,POST GRADUATE TEACHER GOVERNMENT SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL, KAVARATTI LAKSHADWEEP.**
## **BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
**--------------**
**1. THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATTI,LAKSHADWEEP.-682555**
**2. THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR-682555**
**3. HIGHER EDUCATION SELECTION BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATTI, LAKSHADWEEP-682555**
**4. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS 5TH FLOOR,HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.**
**5. GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE-673 078, REP BY THE DEAN**
**WPC.No. 22925 of 2011 (M)**
**--2--**
**6. MIDHUN P,**
**S/O.BITHRA M.P,NO.10/643,ATHIRA DAIVA PURAKKAL ROAD,KUNDANNOOR, MARADU KOCHI-682304**
**7. STATE OF KERALA,**
**REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001**
**R,R1-3 BY SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN R,R6 BY SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) R,R6 BY SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL R,R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**WPC.No. 22925 of 2011 (M)**
## **APPENDIX**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS**
|**EXT.P1**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE SERVICE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE**|
|---|---|
||**PRINCIPAL,GOVT.SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,KAVARATTI DATED**|
||**22.6.2011.**|
|**EXT.P2**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE**|
||**PRINCIPAL,GOVT.SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,KAVARATTI DATED**|
||**20.6.2011.**|
|**EXT.P3**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARK LIST ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF**|
||**HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATION DATED 20-05-2011**|
|**EXT.P4**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT**|
||**DATED 18-07-1979**|
|**EXT.P5**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR THE YEAR 2011 ISSUED BY THE**|
||**4TH RESPONDENT**|
|**EXT.P6**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.F NO.04/09/2009/EDN(AW)**|
||**DATED 7.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**|
|**EXT. P7**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE**|
||**1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.6.2011.**|
|**EXT.P8**|**COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 12-5-1997**|
|**RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS**||
|**R1(a)**|**COPY OF THE SELECTION PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECTION**|
||**COMMITTEE**|
|**R1(b)**|**COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER**|
|**R1(c)**|**COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER FROM KOCHI TO KAVARATTI DURING**|
||**2009**|
|**WPC.No.**|**22925**|**of 2011 (M) --2--**|
|---|---|---|
|**R6(a)**||**COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM F.NO. 14/1/2007 -E.O DATED 27-4-**|
|||**2007 OF THE EDUCATION OFFICER, UNION TERRITORY OF**|
|||**LAKSHADWEEP,KOCHI**|
|**R6(b)**||**COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO. 1/3/2007.EO/2363 DATED 3-12-2009 OF THE**|
|||**EDUCATION OFFICER, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP**|
|**R6(c)**||**COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF MARKS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER**|
|||**BY THE COUNCIL FOR THE INDIAN SCHOOLS CERTIFICATE**|
|||**EXAMINATIONS, NEW DELHI**|
|**R6(d)**||**COPY OF HTE RELEVANT PAGE OF SSLC BOOK OF BITHRA. M.P**|
|**R6(e)**||**COPY OF THE COURSE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BYTHE PRINCIPAL OF THE**|
|||**COLLEGE AT KAVARATTI TO BITHRA M.P**|
|**R6(f)**||**COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F.12/147/84-SERVICES DATED 17-5-1985 ISSUED**|
|||**BY THE COLLECTOR-CUM -DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, U.T. OF**|
|**`**||**LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI**|
|**R6(h)**||**COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO/ 12/24/2000 SERVICES DATED 28-4-2000 ISSUED**|
|||**BY THE SECRETARY (ADMN)UT OF LAKSHADWEEP(SECRETARIAT)**|
|**R6(i)**||**COPY OF THE ORDER F.NO. 12/08/2009-SERVICES DATED 21-5-2009 OF THE**|
|||**DIRECTOR SERVICES OF THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNION**|
|||**TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP**|
|**R6(j)**||**COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16-3-2007 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR**|
|||**(SERVICES) OF UTL TO M.P BITHRA**|
|**R6(K)**||**COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE F.NO. 45/2/2005/GSSSK DATED 27-5-2009**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,**|
|||**KAVARATTI TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT**|
|**R6(l)**||**COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.F.04 /KVK/2011-12 DATED 26-5-2009**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, TO THE**|
|||**6TH RESPONDENT**|
|**WPC.No.**|**22925**|**of 2011 (M) --3--**|
|---|---|---|
|**R6(m)**||**COPY OF THE MARKS STATEMENT (CERTIFICATE) DATED 26-5-2009**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, TO THE**|
|||**6TH RESPONDENT**|
|**R6(n)**||**COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 23-5-2011 ISSUED TO THE 6TH**|
|||**RESPONDENT, BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION**|
|**R6(O)**||**COPY OF HTE CERTIFICATE DATED 24-5-2011 ISSUED TO M.P BITHRA BY**|
|||**THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEEER, LAKSHADWEEP PWD, WELLINGTON**|
|||**ISLAND**|
|**R6(p)**||**COPY OF THE CIRCULAR F.NO. 04/09/2009 /EDN. (AW) DATED 7-6-2011**|
|||**ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**|
|**R6(q)**||**COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE SEAT ALLOTMENT**|
|||**COMMITTEE DATED 10-8-2011**|
|**R6(r)**||**COPY OF THE SCORE SHEET OF MARKS SECURED BY THE THREE**|
|||**CANDIDATES DRAWN UP BY 1st RESPONDENT AND PLACED BEFORE THE**|
|||**SEAT ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATES**|
|**R6(s)**||**COPY OF THE LETTER F.NO. 05745 DATED 20-8-2011 ISSUED BY THE**|
|||**MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOZHIKODE**|
|**R6(u)**||**COPY OF THE MEMO NO. 10465 DATED 20-8-2011 ISSUED BY THE**|
|||**PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, CALICUT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT**|
**TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE**
**SMM**
V.CHITAMBARESH,J.
= = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) NO.22925 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The controversy centres around the admission of the sixth respondent to the MBBS course in the Calicut Medical College in the quota reserved for the wards of Malayalees settled in the Island. Ext.P5 is the prospectus issued by the Government of Kerala for admission to professional degree course 2011 and clause no.4.1.11 (IV) is as follows
“Nominees from Lakshadeep: Seats are reserved for the candidates of Kerala origin settled in Lakshadeep. The candidates should be sponsored by the Administration of that Union Territory and must possess the requisite qualifications as per Clause 6. The distribution of seats is given in Annexure 111(2),V (2) and VII (2).”
The case of the second petitioner is that she had passed her Plus Two from the Government Senior Secondary School, Kavaratti whereas sixth respondent had passed Plus Two from the Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kochi. The petitioner contends that she was more qualified as per the prospectus going by the last date of submission of the application for admission .
W.P.(C) NO.22925 OF 2011 2
2. There are more reasons than one to dismiss this writ petition. Firstly, the petitioner has not impleaded the necesssary parties. Ext.R6(q) is the rank list which shows that the sixth respondent has been placed first, another candidate by name Deepthi.P as the second and the second petitioner as the third. The petitioner would not secure admission to the course even if the admission of the 6[th] respondent is annulled. The failure to implead persons in the select list has been held to be bad in _**K.H.Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala & Others (2006 (2) KLJ (SC) 344)**_ . The mere fact that the person ranked second has obtained admission elsewhere to some other course is hardly a reason. It is upto her to opt for the MBBS Course or for the Engineering Course to which she has now joined.
3. Secondly, the admission to the MBBS Course has to be completed within a time frame. The Supreme Court in _**Mridul Dhar vs. Union Of India (2005) 2 Supreme Court**_
_**Cases 65**_ has prescribed the cut of date as 30-9-2009. The sixth respondent has started studying the MBBS Course from 20-8-2011 as evident by Ext.R6(u). The petitioner cannot at
W.P.(C) NO.22925 OF 2011 3
any rate be accommodated in this seat even if her contentions are to be upheld. I therefore decline jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Thirdly, the relevant clause in Ext.P5 prospectus speaks of candidates of Kerala origin 'settled' in Lakshadeep. Neither the petitioner nor the sixth respondent can claim to have settled in Lakshadeep. The exhibits produced reveal that the second petitioner did her second year Plus Two Course in a school at Kavaratti in Lakshadeep. But the sixth respondent had studied 9 out of 12 years in the various schools at Lakshadeep. This was precisely why the sixth respondent was given weightage in the marks as evident by Ext.R6(r). The action of the authorities in preferring the sixth respondent to the petitioner cannot be faulted with under the circumstances.
The writ petition fails and is hence dismissed.
V.CHITAMBARESH smm JUDGE
# W.P.(C) NO.22925 OF 2011 4