Sonal S. v. State of Kerala and Commissioner for Entrance Examination

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY`** ``` WEDNESDAY, THE 2[ND] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943 ``` ## **`WA NO. 135 OF 2022`** ## **`AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21704/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA`** ## **`APPELLANT/PETITIONER:`** ``` SONAL S., AGED 18 YEARS S/O.DR.SURESAN,AGED 18 YEARS,SAHATHA, PARAMBIL PEEDIKA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 317. ``` ``` BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. ``` - `2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 5TH FLOOR,HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` ``` SRI V.TEK CHAND SR GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 2[nd] day of February, 2022 ## **S.Manikumar, C.J.** Petitioner in the writ petition has filed this writ appeal challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C).No.21704 of 2021 dated 26.10.2021, whereby, the following reliefs sought for by the appellant/petitioner in the writ petition were declined and the writ petition was dismissed. - “(1) Declare that the ranked list prepared for KEAM Engineering Examination by the respondents 1 and 2 by applying the standardization formula fixed in Clause 9.7. 4.(b)(iii) for this year is illegal and arbitrary; - (2) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writs, direction or orders direct the respondents to prepare the ranked list for KEAM Engineering based on the marks obtained in the Entrance Examination alone or should prepare another standardization formula taking into account of the method of examinations and declaration of results conducted by the different examination Boards.” 2. Basic facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **3** According to the appellant, he has passed the XIIth standard in the CBSE syllabus from Kuriakose Elias English Medium School, Mannanam, Kottayam District, with 99.42% marks in the year 2021. The minimum qualification required for higher education in the State of Kerala is passing higher secondary education in State syllabus, or higher secondary education in CBSE syllabus or higher secondary education in ICSE syllabus. It is an admitted fact that, as far as professional degree courses in medicine, engineering, architecture etc. are concerned, admissions are regulated on the basis of a rank list prepared through a common entrance examination and the students who secure 45% marks in the XIIth standard are eligible to apply for the entrance examination. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that, for the admissions in the engineering colleges in the State of Kerala for the academic year 2021-22, it is proposed to render equal weightage of 50:50 to the score obtained in the entrance examination and the marks obtained in the XIIth standard, which is unjust and illegal in the present scenario of the mode of marks awarded in the XIIth standard of CBSE and ICSE **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **4** stream due to Covid - 19 pandemic and the way in which the XIIth standard examination was conducted and the marks awarded by the State Board. 4. It is submitted by the appellant that, for engineering admissions, equal weightage of 50:50 score obtained in the entrance examination and the marks obtained in the XIIth standard has been in prevalence from 2011 onwards. According to the appellant, during the 2020-21 academic year, an altogether different situation prevailed as no Plus 2 examination has been conducted for CBSE and ICSE students and instead, marks have been awarded on the basis of the scheme submitted by the CBSE and ICSE. 5. But, in so far as the State syllabus and students are concerned, a name sake examination has been conducted for Plus 2 and a highly liberalized system of evaluation was done in the light of the prevailing pandemic situation, and resultantly, there was no proper evaluation of the academic merit of the students who have completed Plus 2 course during the academic year in question in any of the three basic channels for higher studies. **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **5** 6. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the marks of the entrance examination alone ought to have been taken as criteria for drawing up the rank list and providing admissions to various professional courses within the State for the academic year 2021-22. 7. The learned Single Judge, after taking into account the provisions of the prospectus and relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has arrived at the firm conclusion that the appellant has not made out any case justifying interference, exercising the power of discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal and learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.V.Tekchand, appearing for the respondents and perused the pleadings and the materials on record. 9. It is an admitted fact that appellant has participated in the entrance examination in accordance with the stipulations contained in Ext.P2 prospectus issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala, for the academic year **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **6** 2021-22 right from the submission of applications till the admissions are made. The modality under which the preparation of the rank list is clearly specified in the prospectus, wherein, it is clearly specified that the rank list would be prepared by giving equal weightage of 50:50 to the score obtained in the entrance examination and the marks obtained in the XIIth standard examination. On a reading of the prospectus, it is clear that the prescriptions therein are made on the basis of a formula of standardization approved by the expert committee constituted by the government. 10. The basic contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the learned single judge has failed to take note of the fact that the examination conducted by the State Board did not have sufficient standard and C.B.SE and I.C.S.E, having not conducted any examination for plus 2 and a policy for evaluation was made for assessing the general academic merit of the students for award of marks, which cannot be equated with the marks awarded in a regular examination, if standardization as stipulated in the prospectus is done for preparation of the rank list for the professional **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **7** degree courses, it would materially affect the students who have secured high marks in the qualifying Entrance Examination conducted as per the prospectus in force. 11. In our considered opinion, the appellant has participated in the Entrance Examination knowing fully well that the standardization of the marks would be done in accordance with the formula fixed by the State Government as per the advice of the expert committee in the year 2011. Basically, the appellant having participated in the Entrance Examination knowing fully well the manner in which the rank list would be prepared, cannot turn around and contend that the provisions contained in the prospectus regarding the standardization of the marks of the qualifying examination and the entrance examination is illegal and arbitrary, which thus means, that if the appellant had any objection to the rules contained in the prospectus which is the rule of the game, he ought to have challenged it before participating in the examination. In absentia of any such attempt from the part of the appellant, the action can only be viewed as an afterthought and making a preparation for a future challenge **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **8** in the event of any eventualities adverse to the appellant in the admission process. 12. The issue is no more _res integra_ , since the Hon'ble Apex Court had occasion to consider the said legal aspect in its various judgments and it is only appropriate that some of the judgments are referred to, enabling us to arrive at a logical conclusion in respect to the arguments advanced by the appellant, which were taken into account by us while disposing of W.A.No.1224 of 2021 and which judgment has been relied up on by the learned single Judge to dismiss the writ petition. 13. In **Dr.G.Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Others** AIR 1976 SC 2428, it was held by the Apex Court that the petitioner who knew about the composition of the selection committee and took a chance to be selected, cannot thereafter question the constitution of the committee. In **Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla** [1986 supplementary SCC 285], wherein, a three-Judge bench held that, petitioner appeared in the examination without any protest was not entitled to challenge the result of the **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **9** examination. The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in **Madan Lal v. State of J & K** [(1997) 7 SCC 677], wherein, the Apex Court in paragraph 9 held that, the petitioners who have participated in the written test and oral interview on the basis of the notification issued after the selection procedure is over, is not entitled to attack the constitution of the selection committee. In **Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar** [(2010) 12 SCC 576], the aforesaid principle was reiterated and held that the petitioner who has approached the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after finding that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the commission, is not entitled to get any relief. In **Pradeep Kumar Rai and Others v. Dinesh Kumar Pandy and Others** [2015 11 SCC 493], the question considered was in respect of a promotion to a post and the selection process thereto, wherein the Apex Court held that the challenge to selection process after participating in the interview and declaration of adverse result, is not maintainable, since the participation in the selection process was without raising any objections. **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **10** 14. So also, we find that the prospectus was prepared by the Government, taking into account the expert opinion in regard to the manner in which the rank list has to be prepared. In our considered opinion, the contentions raised by the appellant with respect to the manner in which the State Board has conducted the examinations and the evaluation done by C.B.S.E and I.C.S.E, thus enabling the students to secure more marks due to the peculiar nature of the questions provided and performance assessed, respectively, cannot be verified by the writ court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Furthermore, there are no materials produced by the appellant before the writ court even prima facie to establish such an averment made, so as to grant any relief to the appellant and, therefore, the writ court was of the clear opinion that the appellant is not entitled to secure any relief, there being no arbitrariness or illegality. 16. Taking into account all the above aspects and legal circumstances pointed out above, we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has not made out any case for **W.A.No.135 of 2022** **11** interference in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, there being no error of exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction, or other legal infirmities justifying interference. However, we deem it fit to place on record the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the appellant has secured Rank No.68 in the KEAM admission list, he has taken admission in the college of his own choice. Needless to say, the 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** //true copy// P.A. to Judge