SREEDEV H v. STATE OF KERALA & ORS

W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -1- ## **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 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 3RD ASWINA, 1942** **WA.No.1150 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 23341/2019(P) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/S:** **SREEDEV H AGED 19 YEARS S/O. U.HARIDAS, SREELAKAM, CHORAMKULAM, CHITTILAMCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 704.** **BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, STATUE ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** - **4 THE ATYA PATIYA KERALA STATE ASSOCIATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CENTRAL BANKERS, ENGAPUZHLA P.O., PUTHUPAD, KOZHIKODE-673 301.** - **5 ATYA PATIYA FEDERATION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, C/O. NAGPUR SHARIRIK SHIKSHAN MAHAVIDYALAYA, NEAR INDIA GYMAKHANA, DR. MUNJE MARG, DHANTOLI, NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA-440 012.** W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -2- **6 ANUGRAH JYOTHY P.M PEEDIKAKANDY HOUSE, PAYYADIMEETHAL, PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673 019.** **7 ANTONY P.ALAPPAT ALAPPAT HOUSE, BEHIND GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL, PUDUKAD, PUDUKAD P.O., THRISSUR-680 301.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SR.GP FOR R1 AND R2, SMT. LATHA ANAND, SC FOR R3, SRI.P.M.SANEER FOR R4 AND R5, SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE FOR R6 AND SMT.NISHA GEORGE FOR R7** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -3- ## **J U D G M E N T** ## S. Manikumar, C. J. Captioned appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 23341 of 2019 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2020 dismissing the writ petition holding that the appellant is not entitled to get admission to MBBS course in the sports quota for the year 2019-2020 in the selection conducted on the basis of the Kerala Engineering Architecture Medical Entrance Examination (KEAM), 2019. 2. Learned Single Judge, after considering the issues raised by the rival parties, including the students who have secured admission in the sports quota, held that the writ court would not be justified in embarking on an exercise of verification of the certificates produced by respondents 6 and 7 therein, who have secured admission, for the course, and find out whether they are in accordance with the requirements of the prospectus. 3. Writ court also found that in a batch of writ petitions W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -4- challenging the provisions of eligibility, court had already decided W.P.(C) No. 18203 of 2019 and in the light of the judgment in the said writ petition, the issue has attained finality. Writ court has also found that though appeals were preferred by the aggrieved parties against the common judgment, before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, and later before the Hon'ble Apex Court, and the issues also stood settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7025 and 7026 of 2019. However, challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned judgment in W.P. (C) No. 23341 of 2019 dated 29.05.2020, this appeal is preferred. 4. Brief material facts for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows: Writ petition No. 23341 of 2020 has been filed challenging the eligibility of respondents 6 and 7 i.e. one Anugrah and Antony P. Alappat, who have secured admission in the sports quota, and the genuineness of the proficiency claimed by them, for admission under sports quota for Medical Courses – 2019. As per Ext.P2 prospectus, for admission to KEAM, altogether 9 seats i.e., 7 seats for MBBS and two seats for BDS were reserved for W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -5- admission under sports quota for the year 2019. As per Ext.P2, the last date of submission of online application for admission, including admission to sports quota, was on 28.02.2019 at 5 p.m., which was subsequently extended to 04.03.2019 vide the order of the second respondent. Therefore, according to the appellant, the online application had to be submitted before the aforesaid cut off date, and the proficiency in sports obtained as on 04.03.2019 alone should have been considered for priority and admission under sports quota. The Kerala State Sports Council, the third respondent, was the authority to prepare the priority list with grace marks of candidates for admission under the sports quota as per Ext.P2, which was to be forwarded to the Commissioner of Entrance Examination, the second respondent, to prepare the merit wise rank list for admission under the sports quota based on the priority and grace marks awarded by the Kerala State Sports Council and the marks obtained in the entrance examination. It was accordingly, that the Kerala State Sports Council forwarded the list to the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations, who has finalised the list of the sports quota on the basis of the list W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -6- forwarded by the Kerala State Sports Council. 5. The appellant was one of the applicants for admission under the sports quota for Medical Courses – 2019 - 20. His proficiency in the sports event 'Tennikoyit' is put forth in Ext.P4 draft eligibility list prepared. As per Ext.P3, guidelines were published by the third respondent to prepare the select list, and the appellant was included at serial No. 71 with 43 marks presumably based on the proficiency claimed by him. Respondents 6 and 7 have submitted their proficiency in the sports event 'Atya Patya' and they were placed at serial Nos. 56 and 11 with 50 and 60 marks respectively, evident from Ext.P4 draft eligibility list. Thereafter, Ext.P5 final eligibility list was published and the 7th respondent was placed at serial No. 1 with 76 marks and according to the appellant, there was no suspicion at that point of time as the appellant was unaware of his proficiency details to cross check it with Ext.P3 eligibility guidelines. 6. Thereafter, upon enquiry from various authorities and from the particulars and documents made available in the website of the Atya Patya Federation of India, the 5th respondent, appellant decided to verify the genuineness of the 7th respondent's proficiency and to W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -7- enquire, as to under what circumstances he was awarded with 76 marks to place him as serial No.1 in Ext.P5 final eligibility list. 7. Various other contentions have been raised by the appellant to canvas that the admissions made to the MBBS course in the sports quota, is not in terms of Ext.P2 prospectus and Ext.P3 eligibility guidelines issued for the purpose of preparing the select list. 8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Atya Patya Federation in the writ petition refuting the allegations raised therein, and further submitted that the documents of certificates issued to the 6[th] and 7[th] respondents were in accordance with their participation in appropriate sports events and that the certificates were issued in terms of the guidelines issued by the statutory authorities and in accordance with law. 9. Before the writ court, Mr. Antony P. Alappat, the 7[th] respondent has also filed a detailed counter affidavit explaining the veracity of the certificate produced by the contesting party, and genuineness of the admission secured by him. 10. We have heard Sri. Sunil V. Mohammed, learned counsel for W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -8- the appellant, Sri. Aravind Kumar Babu, learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt. Latha Anand for the Sports Council, Sri. Martin Jose for the 6[th] respondent, Smt. Nisha George for the 7[th] respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the other respondents, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 11. Sole question that arises for consideration is whether there is any legal infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing W. P. (C) No. 23341 of 2019 and declining the reliefs to the appellant. 12. On an appreciation of the facts and circumstances, it is clear that there was a batch of writ petitions before this Court challenging the admission under the sports quota for year 2019-2020 in the aforementioned disciplines. All the writ petitions were dismissed. 13. Writ Appeals, W.A. Nos.1757 and 1758 of 2019 preferred against the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 20720 and 19257 of 2019 were dismissed, except, interfering to a limited extent of reversing the findings of the learned Single Judge to consider the application under the sports quota of one of the writ petitioners, in a group event, in preference to the certificates produced by him, in the W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -9- individual event. 14. Dismissal of the Writ Appeals were challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 7025 and 7026 of 2019, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court was confirmed. These are undisputed facts. 15. Writ court found that the attempt of the writ petitioners / appellant was only to rake up matters which have been given a quietus by a Hon'ble Bench of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering all the relevant aspects. That apart, earlier, veracity of the certificates produced by respondents 6 and 7 were taken into account and found them also to be genuine, competent and true, and entitled to be considered for admission in the sports quota for the MBBS course, 2019-2020. 16. The issue raised by the appellant in respect of the sports quota admissions for the year 2019- 2020 has been considered by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, in the Writ Appeals filed by the other aggrieved persons, in which the judgment of the learned single Judge has been affirmed. Though appeals were preferred by securing leave, the Hon'ble Apex Court, also dismissed the SLPs. Therefore the W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -10- judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, has been merged with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which is a binding precedent on the issue and therefore, the appellant before us is not entitled to rake up the issues, which are once and for all settled. 17. The question with respect to the binding nature of a precedent on similar issues has been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of judgments. In **Bar Council of India** _**v**_ **. Union of India [(2012) 8 SCC 243]** , paragraphs 40 and 41 relevant to the context, which read thus: “40. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disposal of the writ petition filed by S.N. Pandey was in limine and the order passed therein cannot be construed as a binding precedent. It was also submitted that the said decision does not declare any law under Article 141 of the Constitution since points now raised in the present matter, were neither argued nor discussed. 41. We are not persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the disposal of writ petition in S.N. Pandey [(2012) 8 SCC 261] was in limine and the order is brief but the court has disposed of the same on merits. In B. Prabhakar Rao [1985 Supp SCC 432 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 49] , O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. did observe in para 22 that the dismissal in limine of a writ petition cannot W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -11- possibly bar the subsequent writ petitions but at the same time he also observed that such a dismissal in limine may inhibit the discretion of the Court. V. Khalid, J. in his supplementing judgment in para 27(6) exposited the position that normally this Court would be disinclined to entertain or to hear petitions raising identical points again where on an earlier occasion, the matter was heard and dismissed. Not that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such matters, but would normally exercise its discretion against it. We are in complete agreement with the above view of V. Khalid, J. It is against public policy and well-defined principles of judicial discretion to entertain or hear petitions relating to same subject matter where the matter was heard and dismissed on an earlier occasion.” ## 18. In **Government of Andhra Pradesh and ors.** _**v**_ **. A.P. Jiswal** **and ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 748]** , it was held that consistency is the cornerstone of the administration of justice and it is consistency which creates confidence in the system and this consistency can never be achieved without respect to the rule of finality. It was further held that it is with a view to achieve consistency in judicial pronouncements, the courts have evolved the rule of precedents, principle of stare decisis, etc. and these rules and principle are based on public policy. 19. In **Chandra Prakash and others** _**v.**_ **State of U.P. and** W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -12- **another [(2002) 4 SCC 234]** , it has been held that the doctrine of binding precedent is of utmost importance in the administration of our judicial system since it promotes certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and further judicial consistency promotes confidence in the system, and therefore, there is this need for consistency in the enunciation of legal principles in the decisions of this Court. 20. The material facts and the law discussed above would make it clear that there are no reasons for interfering with the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are also of the opinion that what was left open by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ext. P15 order dated 26.08.2019 are issues that are not raised by the parties in the Special Leave Petitions preferred before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Moreover, going through Ext.P15 interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the view that the said interim order was passed during the pendency of the special leave petitions leading to the civil appeals stated supra and on dismissal of the civil appeals, the said interim order cannot have any independent existence, apart from the findings contained in the judgment in civil appeals. Therefore, there is no basis for the contention advanced by the appellant that the appellant is entitled for consideration of the cases projected by him independently W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -13- so as to establish that he, as of right, is entitled to get admission in sports quota for the academic year 2019-2020 in order to have the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in **Krishna Sradha S** _**v**_ **. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [2020 (1)** **KHC 633]** , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had issued certain directions, to provide a seat to the appellant therein, on account of the admission provided by a private management overlooking the merit of another candidate, in the ensuing year. 21. In our considered opinion, since the issues raised by the appellant were settled by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the question of admission to MBBS course in the sports quota for the year 2019-2020 is a closed chapter and cannot be resurrected. Therefore, judging from any angle, the appellant is not entitled to succeed in the Writ Appeal. 22. Though Mr. Sunil V. Mohammed, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not filed any writ petition earlier, facts and circumstances of the case in Writ Appeal No. 1011 of 2020 are similar except for the difference stated supra. 23. We have considered all the _inter se_ issues raised therein and W. A. No. 1150 of 2020 -14- by judgment dated 13.08.2020 dismissed Writ Appeal No. 1011 of 2020. The above said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts on hand. Following the decision in Writ Appeal No. 1011 of 2020, the instant Writ Appeal is dismissed. **Sd/S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE** Eb/25.09.2020 ///TRUE COPY/// P.A. TO JUDGE