Sree Narayana Guru Kripa Trust B.Ed. College, Thiruvananthapuram v State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2013/1ST JYAISHTA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 22532 of 2010 (N)** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER:** - **-------------------** **SREE NARAYANA GURU KRIPA TRUST B.ED.COLLEGE, POTHENCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, T.NIRMALANANDAN.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **------------------------** ## **1. STATE OF KERALA,** - **REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.** **2. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICERFOR SCHEDULED CASTE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-01.** ***ADDL.R.3. IMPLEADED:** **3. L.B.S. CENTRE FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,** **EXTRA POLICE ROAD, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR.** ***IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R.3. AS PER ORDER DT. 27/07/10 IN I.A. 10169/10.** **R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. P.K. SANTHAMMA, ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR S.C.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-05-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **W.P.(C).NO.22532/2010-N:** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 17/11/2009 OF THE PRINCIPAL ALONG WITH THE DETAILS.** **EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 30/11/2009 OF THE DIRECTOR LBS.** - **EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 15/12/2009 OF SHAIJU.Y.** - **EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 07/12/2009 OF HARIPRIYA.** - **EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SRI. SHAIJU.Y., ALONG WITH CAST AND INCOME CERTIFICATE.** - **EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PPLICATION SUBMITTED BY SMT. HARIPRIYA ALONG WITH CAST CERTIFICATE.** - **EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL DTD. 08/02/2010.** - **EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 24/02/2010 OF THE R.2.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE.** **Prv.** A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 22532 of 2010-N --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] May, 2013 **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner had approached this Court challenging Ext.P8. The petitioner had given admission to two candidates, one belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC) and Other Eligible Category (OEC). As per the prevailing Government order, the fee and expenses shall be reimbursed by the Government if the admissions are made from the merit quota. 2. It is not in dispute that 50 students should have been admitted by the College in the merit quota. The process of selection was done by the 3[rd] respondent through L.B.S. They could accommodate only 18 students. By Ext.P2 the College was requested to admit students to other vacancies in accordance W.P.(C) No. 22532 of 2013 2 with the merit and the reservation process followed by the Government. In fact, the other 22 were also merit seats and the college was under obligation to admit the students following the principles of reservation. It is pursuant to such direction that the petitioner's have given admission to two students, one coming under Scheduled Caste category and the other coming under Other Eligible Community category. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2[nd] respondent inter alia contending that since the admissions made by the petitioner was in respect of lapsed seat, it does not amount to an admission to the merit seat and therefore the benefit of the Government order cannot be extended to such students. That apart, they were not admitted directly as per the usual procedure whereas the petitioner had received separate applications from them for making admission in the W.P.(C) No. 22532 of 2013 3 lapsed seat. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in **Akhil P.Pushkar** v. **State of Kerala** (2012 (4) KLT 12) wherein this Court having considered the eligibility of seat for Scheduled Castes and Other Eligible Community students in Self Financing Institutions found that the concession provided by the State Government to such candidates should be extended despite the fact that their admission was in the merit quota or any other form. 5. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment which reads as under: “The fee concession provided by the State Government to SC/ST students is a concession by way of an affirmative action in tune with Articles 15(4), 15(5), 16(4) and 46 of the Constitution. As W.P.(C) No. 22532 of 2013 4 held in Avinash Singh Bagri (supra), rendered after noticing Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008) 6 SCC 1), SCs. and STs are a separate class by themselves and the creamy layer principles is not applicable to them. The benefit extended to them by way of concessions cannot be denied by making an in-house classification among SCs. and STs, based on any principle; be it financial condition or source of recruitment, etc. This is so because, the object sought to be achieved by Article 46 of the Constitution is to ensure promotion of the educational and economic interests of those weaker sections of the people by providing special care and protection from social injustice and all source of exploitation It is not essentially a financial push. It is a wholesome preventive mechanism to insulate that section of the people from social injustice and from all forms of W.P.(C) No. 22532 of 2013 5 exploitation. Such protective cover is the constitution mandate. It is aimed at providing all necessary support and protection to energize and nurture that section of the people from the status of being a “weaker section” to join the mainstream in totality, the blooming of which, the Nation, “We, the People of India is yet to experience in its wholesomeness. Therefore, looking from the angle of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 46, we do not see any justifiable reason, on the face of the Constitution to authorize the classification of SC/ST students, for the reason that they belong to such communities, to extend the benefits declared and made available to them. We, therefore answer the reference overruling the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 27905 of 2008”. W.P.(C) No. 22532 of 2013 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 6. It is submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents that the judgment in Akhil P. Pushkar's case is challenged by the Government by filing a special leave petition and the judgment had been stayed by the Supreme Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader. 8. The factual situation in the above case would show that by way of Ext. P2 the college was permitted to admit balance seats in the merit quota by the college themselves following the principles of reservation. In so far as the 2 students now admitted to the college is with reference to the balance 32 seats available under the meriit quota, I think that the benefit of the Government orders can be extended to such persons as well. W.P.(C) No. 22532 of 2013 **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 9. In the result, this writ petition is allowed as follows: i) Ext.P8 is quashed. ii) The 2[nd] respondent shall sanction the educational grant as requested by the petitioner in terms of Exts.P5, P6 and P7 taking into consideration that the aforesaid two seats are under the merit quota itself. iii) This may be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.** rka /true copy/