High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-12-15Writ petition dismissed.

Meenu K.B. v. State of Kerala and Commissioner of Entrance Examination

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)

Neutral Citation::null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.V. ASHA
Judgment Date: 2020-12-15
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court holds that candidates must adhere to the prospectus and deadlines, and that opportunities to rectify certificates were provided; those who failed to upload valid certificates in time cannot be granted relief.
Final Disposition: Writ petition dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Meenu K.B.

Respondents

State of Kerala
Commissioner of Entrance Examination

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B.S. Swathi Kumar
• Anitha Ravindran
• Harisankar N. Unni
• P.S. Bhagya Surabhi
• Sarangadharan P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Vinith B. (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

Meenu K.B., a 19-year-old student from the Hindu Viswakarma community, petitions under Article 226 challenging the denial of reservation in medical admissions through KEAM/NEET. She contends eligibility for reservation as a socially and educationally backward class member, but her category was changed due to certificate issues. Initially she uploaded Ext.P2, a Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate issued for State Employment, and the KEAM/NEET confirmation pages showed her as General. On inquiry, she learned that the certificate was not valid for education purposes, leading to her misclassification. She subsequently obtained Ext.P6, another NCL certificate for State Education on 09.11.2020 and filed Ext.P7, a complaint on 20.11.2020, arguing she should not be penalised for the village officer’s oversight. She cites earlier judgments in W.P.(C) No.21474/2020 and other connected matters where the court considered late submissions but did not direct relief, arguing that opportunities were available to rectify certificates during the admission window, including amid Covid-19. The Government Pleader relies on Sainulabdin v. State of Kerala to stress strict compliance with the prospectus (timely upload and correct certificate). Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, holding petitioners are not entitled to relief and emphasizing strict adherence to procedural deadlines.

Provisions of Law Cited

G.O.(P) No.1/2015/BCDD dated 19.01.2015 (Annexure V) and the required non-creamy layer certificates for State Education purposesClause 5.4.2(a) and (b) of the prospectus published on 02.02.2020Article 226 of the Constitution

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner asserts eligibility for reservation as a backward class candidate and challenges the misclassification that occurred due to the Village Officer’s incorrect certificate, which was used to place her in the General category on KEAM/NEET confirmation pages. She argues that the certificate meant for State Employment should not prejudice her educationally backward class status and that she should be allowed to rely on the later, correctly issued State-Education NCL certificate (Ext.P6) along with her complaint (Ext.P7) to rectify the error. She contends that penalising her for the officer’s default contravenes the aim of timely notification and the spirit of the prospectus, which allowed multiple opportunities to upload requisite documents, even during Covid-19 restrictions. She relies on earlier rulings that permitted relief in similar circumstances but acknowledges the need to meet procedural requirements.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the admission process required strict, timely compliance with the prospectus and its annexures. They argue that the non-creamy layer certificate for employment purposes cannot determine reservation in education and that the petition should be dismissed for failing to adhere to deadlines. They cite established precedents that late submissions cannot be rectified post-deadline and rely on Sainulabdin to justify that relief under Article 226 is unavailable where required certificates were not submitted in the prescribed form. They emphasize that the petition seeks an exception from clear procedural requirements that various other candidates complied with, and that the Division Bench decisions in related writ petitions align with dismissal in these cases.

Cited Precedents (8)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sainulabdin v. State of Kerala	1995 KHC 362	Positive	The Division Bench relied on this decision to hold that failure to submit the income certificate in the prescribed form would render the application defective and that there is no remedy under Article 226 in such defective cases.
Chairman NRI Service and Educational Trust v Kerala University of Health Service and others	2014(3) KLT 312	Overruled	The court stated that relying on this argument could not be accepted in light of other precedents; the reasoning of this case is not followed in the current decision.
W.P.(C).No.21474/2020	21474/2020	Positive	Similar petitions were rejected in this decision, supporting the present outcome.
W.A.No.1080/2020	W.A. No.1080/2020	Positive	Division Bench decisions mirrored the dismissal of similar late-submission petitions.
W.A.No.1183/2020	W.A. No.1183/2020	Positive	Similar petitions were dismissed in these appeals, aligning with the present ruling.
W.P.(C).No.16518/2020	W.P.(C).No.16518/2020	Positive	Judgments in these petitions rejected similar relief for late certificate submission.
W.P.(C).No.17368/2020	W.P.(C).No.17368/2020	Positive	Similar rejection of relief in related petitions.
W.P.(C).No.20844/2020	W.P.(C).No.20844/2020	Positive	Similar claims rejected; supports the present ruling.

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 Meenu K.B. v. State of Kerala and Commissioner of Entrance Examination 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 SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MEENU K.B., AGED 19 YEARS, KIZHAKKE MATTATHIL HOUSE, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI SMT.P.S.BHAGYA SURABHI SRI.SARANGADHARAN P.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2 COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **BY ADV. SMT.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** **The petitioner, who belongs to Hindu Viswakarma community, which is socially and educationally backward, is eligible for reservation. She appeared in the KEAM 2020 examination for admission to Medical and Allied courses.** **2. It is stated that she uploaded Ext.P2 Non-Creamy Layer Certificate issued by the Village Officer, which was for State Employment purpose. Pointing out the confirmation page of the NEET (UG) as well as KEAM 2020, petitioner points out that she was shown in the category of OBC in the confirmation page. But when the results were published, she was seen included in the General Category. It is stated on enquiry thereupon, she came to know that it was on the** **WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)** **3** **basis of the Non-Creamy Layer certificate issued by the Village Officer, which was stated to be 'for State Employment Purpose' that she was included in the General Category.** **3. Petitioner points out that she thereafter obtained Ext.P6 Non-Creamy Layer certificate for State Education Purpose on 09.11.2020, and along with the said certificate, she submitted Ext.P7 complaint before the 2[nd] respondent. According to the petitioner, she cannot be penalised for the default of the Village Officer, who did not issue the proper certificate.** **4. I have already considered a series of cases, in which the candidates did not upload the correct certificates in time and allegations were raised against the Village Officers also. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.21474/2020 and** **WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)** **4** ## **connected cases, in which a similar issue was** ## **considered, read as follows:** _**“8. It is seen that none of the petitioners have produced the certificates as required in clause 5.4.2(a) and (b) of the prospectus which was published on 02.02.2020, where it is specifically stated that they have to upload the certificates as required in Annexure V of the G.O.(P) No.1/2015/BCDD dated 19.01.2015 and that they should invariably upload the non-creamy layer certificate in the prescribed format for State Government Education purpose obtained from the Village Officer concerned. As rightly pointed out by Sri. V. Manu the learned Senior Government Pleader, there was sufficient time available for the petitioners to apply and obtain the certificate along with their application itself before 29.02.2020 well before the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and even thereafter when opportunities were provided several times till 24.09.2020 each time alerting that no further opportunity would be given. Though it is quite unfortunate for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21474 of 2020, that she could not avail the opportunity made available from 24.09.2020 to 28.09.2020 when her**_ **WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)** **5** _**application was pending from 11.09.2020, a further opportunity cannot be directed to be given to the candidates by this court, when the competent authority has fixed the dates and has given multiple chances to the candidates. Those who apply for professional degree courses should be vigilant enough to submit their applications along with the requisite documents as required in the prospectus. Along with the application the candidates are submitting a declaration (as seen from the confirmation page) to the effect that they have downloaded and read various clauses in the prospectus and agreeing to abide by them. In case they had read and understood the provisions in the prospectus properly they would have submitted the relevant certificates along with the application itself or would have got it cleared when opportunities were given further.**_ _**9. Moreover similar claims of candidates who did not upload the requisite documents at the relevant time were rejected by the Division Bench, after elaborately considering the procedure adopted by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations and with reference to the case law on the subject in the judgments in W.A.No.1080/2020 and W. A.No.1183/2020 respectively. In the judgments in W.P.**_ **WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)** **6** _**(C).No. 16518/2020, 17368/2020 and 20844/2020 also similar claims were rejected. It is also pertinent to note that in the judgment in Sainulabdin v. State of Kerala [1995 KHC 362], relied on by the learned Government Pleader, the Division Bench of this Court has held that failure to submit the income certificate in the form prescribed for that purpose, as provided in the prospectus, along with the application would render the application defective and the candidate cannot seek a remedy on the strength of such a detective application under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the light of the judgment also petitioners cannot be granted any relief. Though Sri. Praveen, the learned counsel for the petitioner in one of the writ petitions relied on the judgment reported in Chairman NRI Service and Educational Trust v Kerala University of Health Service and others [2014(3) KLT 312] and argued that the petitioner should be treated as a candidate eligible for reservation, in the light of the judgments of the Division Benches in 1995 and also in 2020, the said contention cannot be accepted. There are sufficient number of candidates who have submitted the valid claims for reservation uploading the requisite documents at the relevant time. In view of the above circumstances,**_ **WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)** **7** _**I am of the view that petitioners do not reserve any relief in these writ petitions. Accordingly these writ petitions are dismissed.”**_ **5. The said judgment is affirmed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 28.10.2020 in Writ Appeal No.1404/2020.** **In the light of the aforesaid judgment the case of the petitioner, who was also not vigilant, cannot be granted any relief.** **Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/-** **P.V.ASHA JUDGE** **ww** **WP(C).No.27930 OF 2020(M)** **8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATE NO.S.531412 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE NO.46227986 DATED 28/2/2020.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE CARD FOR NATIONAL ELIGIBILITY CUM ENTRANCE TEST (UG)-2020 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR DIRECTOR (NEET(UG)).** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION PAGE-KEAM 2020 WITH APPLICATION NO.1161314 DATED 12/2/2020. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PRINT OUT FROM THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT STATING HER COMMUNITY AS GENERAL. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NON-CREAMY LAYER CERTIFICATE NO.51853432 DATED 9/11/2020. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20/11/2020. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST FILED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9/11/2020. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION PAGE - NEET (UG)-2020 APPLICATION NO.200410300281.**