Shilpa S. JayaDev v. State of Kerala & Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY ``` ``` FRIDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943 ``` ``` WA NO. 171 OF 2022 ``` ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` SHILPA S. JAYADEV AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.JAYADEVAN, RESIDING AT SREEVALSAM, VIJAYAMBIKA ROAD, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 688 534. ``` ``` BY ADVS. T.N.JAYADEVAN D.JOTHIKUMAR J.VISHNU DEVARAJ ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.` - `2 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 011.` - `3 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.` - `4 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.` **2** ## **W.A.No.171 of 2022** ``` 5MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA (NOW NATIONAL MEDICAL COMMISSION), REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, POCKET 14, STREET 8, DWARAKA PHASE 1, NEW DELHI, PIN – 110 001. 6KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR, MULANKUNNATHUKAVU, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THRISSUR, PIN – 680 596. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.K.R.RANJITH, GP SHRI.P.SREEKUMAR, SC, KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES SRI.TITUS MANI VETTOM, SC FOR R5 ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 18[th] day of February, 2022 ## **S.Manikumar, C.J.** This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.11915 of 2021, challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 24.11.2021, by which the following reliefs sought for by the petitioner were declined and the writ petition was dismissed. - “(i) quash Exhibit P2 which is arbitrary, illegal and is in violation of horizontal reservation principles settled by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhny and Others vs. Union of India and Others ((1992) Supp (3) SCC 217), Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors vs. State of UP and Ors (1995) 5 SCC 173) and Saurav Yadav & Ors v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors decided on 18.12.2020 (MANU/SC/0960/2020). - (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st and 3rd respondents to allot MBBS seat to the petitioner as the rank of the petitioner falls within the quota reserved under Exhibit P5 read with the law settled by the Apex Court. - (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st and 3rd **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **4** respondents to admit the petitioner to MBBS Course 2018-19 since the course for the first year of both, BDS and MBBS, is more or less the same, with instructions to hold additional classes to the petitioner as held by the Apex Court in Asha vs Pt.B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and Others [(2012) 7 SCC 389). ## Or issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st and 3rd respondents to admit the petitioner to MBBS Course for the academic year 2019-20, with instructions to hold additional classes to the petitioner. - (iv) appropriate direction to the State Government to award proper and adequate compensation to the petitioner for mental agony, expenses of litigation and valuable period of life that stands wasted due to the failure on the part of respondents. - (v) appropriate direction to the State Government to strictly adhere to Exhibit P5 along with the horizontal reservation principles held by the Apex Court. Exclusion of the other reservation categories and the mandatory reservation on the remaining seats as stated in Exhibit P9 shall not be enforced against SCST to the extent that dilute the mandatory reservation of 10% under Exhibit P5. Declare that enforcing Exhibit P9 against SCST without applying the horizontal reservation principles of the Apex Court is illegal.” **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **5** 2. The matter in issue is pertaining to the admission for MBBS course for the academic year 2018-2019. According to the petitioner, she was legitimately expecting to secure MBBS seat as mandatory reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe categories is computed as per Government Order dated 6.8.1971 read with the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others** reported in AIR 1993 SC 477 and **Anil Kumar Gupta and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others** reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173. 3. In fact, the appellant has earlier filed W.P.(C)No.27190 of 2018 and as per the judgment dated 10.08.2018, the writ petition was disposed of, recording the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader that 8% reservation earmarked for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates was provided in the prospectus for the year 2018 on a Statewide basis and the reservation is being strictly adhered to on the Statewide basis. 4. Anyhow, according to the appellant, the **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **6** representation submitted by her in that regard was rejected after three months and therefore, it is contended that the 3[rd] respondent, namely, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has violated the horizontal reservation principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and consequent to which the reservation seats of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe was drastically reduced. Even though W.P.(C)No.16171 of 2019 was filed challenging the rejection order, it was later withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. 5. Learned single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival submissions made across the Bar and after conducting a detailed survey of the issues raised by the appellant in the earlier writ petitions, and referring to the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, ordered thus: “25. The judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 27190/2018 is Ext.P1 in this writ petition. W.P.(C.) No. 16171/2019 which was filed in 2019 was amended twice and subsequently, in 2021, the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh writ petition again. Accordingly, the present writ petition is filed and the prayer in this writ petition is already **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **7** extracted. The contention of the petitioner is that the 10% reservation is not properly computed by the respondents and thereby, the petitioner was denied MBBS seat. Admittedly, the petitioner is a candidate applied for getting admission for the academic year 2018-19. The first representation submitted by the petitioner narrating his grievance was on 24.7.2018, which is clear from the table extracted above. 26. Ext.P1 judgment is dated 10.8.2018. That was before the 2nd phase of allotment as per Annexure R3(d) and after the first phase of allotment as per Annexure R3(c) notification. As directed by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment, Ext.P2 order was passed on 17.11.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court only on 12.6.2019 by filing W.P.(C.) No.16171/2019. The above writ petition was amended twice and thereafter, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file it again on 26.3.2021. Thereafter, this present writ petition was filed on 15.5.2021. If we go through the dates and events in this case, it is clear that the contention of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner are highly belated, is justified. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 order, which is dated 17.11.2018 only on 12.6.2019 by filing W.P.(C.) No. 16171/2019. Thereafter, that writ petition was amended twice and in the year 2021, the same was withdrawn. Ext.P2 order was issued during the currency of the academic year 2018-19. Annexure R3(a), the prospectus for the academic year 2018-19 was approved on 30.1.2018. Centralised allotment process for professional Degree **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **8** course for the year 2018-19 commenced on 23.6.2018 as evident by Annexure R3(b). The first phase of allotment for Medical and Allied courses were published on 4.7.2018 as evident by Annexure R3(c). The second phase of allotment was published as per Annexure R3(d) on 12.8.2018. As per Clause 7(6AAA) of the Regulation on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, the Universities and other authorities concerned shall organise the admission process in accordance with the time schedule indicated in Appendix F thereto. Annexure R3(e) is the Regulations on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) 2018. Annexure R3(f) is the amendment notification dated 18.5.2018. The Regulation on Graduate Medical Education as amended by Annexures R3(e) and R3(f), the time schedule therein was strictly adhered to and the same was binding to the 3[rd] respondent in the matter of admission for the year 201819. As per the aforementioned schedule, the last date of joining for an MBBS course for an academic year is 18th August in the case of State Counselling and 31[st] August in the case of Deemed Universities and Central Institutions. As discernible from Annexure R3(f), under no circumstances, the last date for admission/joining will be extended after 31st August. In view of the flood situation in Kerala during 2018, the last date for admission to the Medical College in the State of Kerala was extended by the Apex Court to 10.9.2018 as evident by Annexure R3(g). Mop-up counselling for MBBS was held on 8th and 9th September, 2018 as per the statement and the vacancies for MBBS in various Colleges in Kerala were filled up. As **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **9** per the statement, the mop-up counselling for BDS was completed on 14.9.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court with W.P.(C.) No. 16171/2019. The same was withdrawn after amending the same twice. According to me, the present writ petition is to be dismissed for the delay aspects itself. The petitioner has not approached this Court in time and this Court is not in a position to pass any orders in favour of the petitioner at this distance of time. I perused the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioner. In all those cases, the Apex Court and this Court passed orders because of the fault of the institutions/authorities in giving admission to candidates. In this case, Ext.P2 order was passed on 17.11.2018 and the same was challenged after about 6 months. Therefore, according to me, the petitioner is not entitled any reliefs in this case for the simple reason that the petitioner has not approached this Court in time. 27. Moreover, on merit also, I perused Annexure R3(i) judgment. Almost the same point raised by the petitioner in this case was raised in that case also. The contention regarding calculation of mandatory seats for allocation of reservation was the point raised in that writ petition. This Court rejected the same. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the judgment. “It is stated that the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that the All India Quota seats and other reserved category of seats including the nominee seats are not available with the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations for conducting allotment and that the quota can be applied only with regard to such seats W.P.(C).No.11915 of 2021 38 which are available for allotment with the Commissioner. It is **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **10** stated that a reading of Ext.P7 judgment would itself make it clear that the finding therein is with regard to a situation where there was no provision either in the reservation policy of the State or in the prospectus of the University for exclusion of seats before the reservation was to be applied. 6. Relying on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Vrushali v. State of Maharashtra [1996 (5) Bom. C.R. 614], it was contended that the reservation was to be exercised only in respect of seats available for allotment by the State. In paragraph 20 of Ext.P9 judgment it was found that the Maharashtra Rules which were construed in Vrushali's case provided for application of reservations on the seats available for disposal with the competent authority. It was held that neither in the reservation policy of the State of Kerala nor in the prospectus of the University is such an exclusion provided and exclusion, if any, will have to be provided by the State and not by the University. It was in the above factual situation that the writ petition was allowed directing the application of the reservation as against the total number of seats. 7. In the instant case, Clause 4.1.5 of Ext.P11 prospectus specifies the method by which reservation is to be applied. It is the specific case of the respondents that the All India Quota seats and the nominee seats are not available with the State Government to make allotments even in the centralised allotment process. The provision in the prospectus is therefore to apply to the seats available with the allotting authority, that is, the 2nd respondent herein. In spite of the petitioner being aware of how the reservation is being worked out, I notice that there is no challenge raised as against Ext. P11 or the provision with regard to reservation as contained therein. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the judgments of the Apex Court on the point would indicate that the reservation quota provided by the State Government can only be implemented in respect of the seats available with the State Government for allotment. In the above view of the matter, the reliefs sought **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **11** for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.” 28. I think, in the light of the above finding, the point raised by the petitioner is covered against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner approached this Court after a long time and this Court cannot give any direction to the petitioner, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted because the petitioner was an applicant for getting admission to the Medical course for the academic year 2018-19 and we are now in the year 2021. No relief can be given to the petitioner at this distance of time. 29. The petitioner filed three writ petitions with almost similar prayers. One writ petition was amended twice and thereafter withdrawing the same the present writ petition is filed with almost same prayers. According to me this writ petition is to be dismissed with heavy cost because the petitioner is wasting the time of this court by filing writ petition after writ petition with various prayers and that also at belated stages. But I am reluctant to impose cost in this case treating it as an innocent attempt of an innocent girl to get admission for her dream course of MBBS. Petitioner ought to have spent time to study well in the ensuing academic year and get admission to her dream course instead of spending time for this legal battle. This is not the end of her educational carrier. I wish her all the best to get admission to her dream course by attempting in the qualifying examination in the next time if it is possible. Take it as a revenge and show the society that the medical science is safe in your hand. That will be **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **12** the happiest day to the author of this judgement just like to you and to your loving parents. After describing the “Ramayana” of Thunjath Ezhuthachan, the legend of Malayalam Poet, Sri.Vallathol in his famous poetry “THONEEYATHRA” said like this: ആനന്ദലബ്ധിക്കെ നിയെ ന്തുവേ ണ‌o?”. If the petitioner attain this goal, I will borrow the same words and will say like this: ആനന്ദലബ്ധിക്കെ നിയെ നതവേ ണ‌o?” God bless you! This writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed. No cost.” It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the writ court, the appeal is preferred. 6. The paramount contention advanced in the appeal is that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the delay and laches on the part of respondents 1, 3 and 4. The cause of action arose on 04.07.2018 when respondent No.3 made the first phase of allotment for MBBS and BDS seats. The appellant submitted representation dated 24.07.2018 before the Authorities to compute the mandatory reservation on the total number of seats. Since no response from the Authorities, W.P.(C)No.11915 of 2021 was filed and this court was pleased **13** ## **W.A.No.171 of 2022** to pass Exhibit P1 judgment dated 10.08.2018 directing respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 24.07.2018 within two weeks. Exhibit P2 order dated 17.11.2018 was passed by respondent No.1 after 14 weeks (100 days), rejecting the representation. The representation dated 24.07.2018 was rejected by respondent No.4 under Exhibit P3 dated 14.02.2019 after 29 weeks (205 days). Acting upon the promise recorded in Exhibit P1 the appellant approached this court with W.P.(C)No.16171 of 2019 on 13.06.2019 after getting the necessary documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Respondent No.3 filed a counter affidavit dated 23.02.2021 after 623 days. Respondent No.3 filed a statement in W.P.(C).No.11915 of 2021 after 143 days. By this time two academic years have elapsed due to the delay and laches which are attributable only on the part of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 respectively. The appellant approached this court on 10.08.2018 and 16.03.2019. Therefore, the finding of the learned single Judge that “the petitioner approached this Court after a long time **14** ## **W.A.No.171 of 2022** and this Court cannot give any direction to the petitioner, even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted...” is not sustainable. 7. That apart, it is submitted that the learned single Judge has erred in considering the fact that the cause of action arose on 04.07.2018 when the mandatory reservation of seats was applied to the remaining seats, after excluding the other reservation categories. The appellant submitted representation before the Authorities. Subsequently W.P. (C).No.27190 of 2018 was filed and in the judgment dated 10.08.2018, this Court was pleased to direct respondent No.1 to consider the representation within two weeks. This Court also recorded the submission made by the Special Government Pleader that the 8% reservation was being strictly adhered to on a Statewide basis. It is stated that the appellant will be allotted a seat if her rank falls within the 8% reserved seats. The representation was rejected on 17.11.2018 (Exhibit P2) by respondent No.1 after 14 weeks after closing the admission process 2018-2019. It is discernible **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **15** from Exhibits P12, P14 and P15 that the reservation is not being strictly adhered to. 8. It is further submitted that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations, and inferences are not based on actual merits of the case and in respect of Exhibit P1 order dated 10.08.2018 in W.P.(C)No.27190 of 2018 of this court. 9. In W.P.(C)No.27190 of 2018, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that “the prospectus provides for 8% reservation on a Statewide basis”. It is stated that on the strength of the petitioner/appellant’s rank, she will be allotted a seat, if her rank falls within the 8% reserved seats. It is clear from Exhibit P14, P15 and Annexure A10 that the rank of the appellant falls within the quota reserved for SC/ST. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that once an order has been passed, it is complied with, accepted by the other party and derives the benefit out of it, he cannot challenge it on any ground. State cannot take a view of approbate and reprobate. **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **16** 11. We have heard Mr.T.N.Jayadevan, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr.K.R.Ranjith, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, Mr.Titus Mani Vettom, learned standing counsel appearing for the Medical Council of India (respondent No.5) and Mr.P.Sreekumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Kerala University of Health Sciences (respondent No.6) and perused the pleadings and the materials on record. 12. In our considered opinion, the appellant is claiming a seat for MBBS in the academic year 2021-2022 on account of the alleged illegality on the part of the Controller of Examinations not to have provided admission to the appellant in the year 2018-2019. On going through the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the judgments cited by the appellant, we are of the view that the appellant is not entitled to get admission for the MBBS course without participating in the NEET examination and the selection conducted by the appropriate statutory authorities for the ensuing year. **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **17** 13. It is also clear from the pleadings put forth by the appellant that in the earlier round of litigation, similar reliefs were sought for and even though one of the earlier writ petitions was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh one, a fresh writ petition was filed with similar reliefs. The entire intrinsic aspects and the points of law raised by the appellant have been considered by the learned single Judge and rendered the judgment holding that the appellant is not entitled to get any relief. 14. It is also clear that the admissions to the MBBS course is made on the basis of the prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations approved by the State Government. In the prospectus for the year 2018-2019, the parameters for preparing the select list is clearly specified. Manner of reservation to be made for the MBBS course is also clearly specified in the prospectus, apart from other reservations. However, none of the stipulations contained in the prospectus is under challenge in the writ petition in question. Moreover, the appellant has not **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **18** established any case before the writ court as well as this court in order to arrive at a finding that there was any illegality committed by the respondents in the matter of providing reservation to the appellant. 15. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant has not made out any case of jurisdictional error or other legal infirmities on the part of the writ court for interference in an intra court appeal filed under section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Needless to say, the writ appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- **S.Manikumar Chief Justice** Sd/- **Shaji P.Chaly Judge** **vpv** **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **19** ## **`APPENDIX OF WA 171/2022`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` - `Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.K2/38265/2018/DME/ 704 DATED 31.10.2018.` - `Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.K2/38265/2018/DME/ 704 DATED 25.09.2018.` - `Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF REPLY.NO.S3/298/2018-HEALTH DATED 26.11.20218.` - `Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.S3/310/2018- HEALTH DATED 27.12.2018.` - `Annexure A5 TRUE COPY REPLY NO.SCSTDD-A2/80/2019SCSTDD DATED 28.05.2019.` - `Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.S3/312/2018- HEALTH DATED 05.01.2019.` - `Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.S3-82/2019-HEALTH DATED 30.03.2019.` - `Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.A1/1025/201/CEE/RTI DATED 24.04.2019.` - `Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF REPLY NO.A1/3956/2019/CEE/ RTI DATED 01.10.2019.` - `Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF LIST OF ALLOTTED CANDIDATES THROUGH KEAM-2018 FOR BDS.` - `Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF HEARING IN SECOND APPEAL AP.NO.122(6)/2020/SIC.` - `Annexure A11 (a) TRUE COPY OF RTI APPLICATION DATED 02.11.2020.` - `Annexure A12 TRUE COPY OF IA/1/2021 IN WPC NO.16171/2019 ALONG WITH ORDER DATED 23.10.2020 IN WA 786/2020.` **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **20** - `Annexure A12(a) COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY R3 IN WPC NO 16171/2019.` - `Annexure A13 COPY OF PRINT OUT OF PROCEEDINGS GIVEN IN WEBSITE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. (C).NO.16171/2019.` - `Annexure A14 COPY OF PRINT OUT PROCEEDINGS GIVEN IN WEBSITE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P. (C).NO.11915/2021` ``` Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN P1 in WPC No WPC.NO.27190/2018 DATED 10.08.2018. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(SADHA) P2 in WPC No NO.3435/2018/H&FWD DATED 17.11.2018. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER P3 in WPC No NO.5210/A4/2018/ALP/KSCSC&ST DATED 11915/2021 14.02.2019. Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE P4 in WPC No COURT IN W.P.(C).NO.16171/2019 DATED 11915/2021 26.03.2021. Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER P5 in WPC No G.O.MS.131/71/EDN.DATED 06.08.1971. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. P6 in WPC No (RT) 2530/2010/H&FWD DATED 29.06.2010. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O. P7 in WPC No (KAI)NO.45/2014/SCSDD DATED 19.07.2014. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF P8 in WPC No THE KERALA EXTRAORDINARY GAZETTE DATED 11915/2021 16.09.2017. Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE P9 in WPC No PROSPECTUS -2018. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. P10 in WPC No (C).13474/2010. 11915/2021 ``` **W.A.No.171 of 2022** **21** ``` Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.K2/230669/MED P11 in WPC No DATED 08.03.2021. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF ALLOTTED P12 in WPC No CANDIDATES UNDER THE NOMINEES. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C ) P13 in WPC No NO.17721. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF ALLOTTED P14 in WPC No CANDIDATES FOR MBBS COURSE THROUGH KEAM- 11915/2021 18 IN GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGES (OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE PALAKKAD). Copy of Exhibit TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LIST OF ALLOTTED P15 in WPC No CANDIDATES FOR MBBS COURSE THROUGH KEAM- 11915/2021 18 IN NON-MINORITY SELF FINANCING MEDICAL COLLEGES. Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER P16 in WPC No NO.B/498/2018/GDCTSR DATED 05.09.2018. 11915/2021 Copy of Exhibit TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION MEMO P17 in WPC No (READMITTED), ADMISSION NO.54/2018/SQ/SC 11915/2021 DATED 16.08.2018. ``` //true copy// P.A. to Judge