On 23rd November 2020, the Kerala High Court involving a single bench judge of the Honourable Smt. Justice P.V. Asha heard the case of Cisly Grashious vs State Of Kerala.
Facts of the Case
The writ petition was filed by students who secured admission in Law Colleges on the basis of rank in the entrance examination for the 3 year LLB course in Kerala. The first option of both the petitioners was Government Law College, Ernakulam. Smt.Cisly Grashious, one of the petitioners was Rank No. 249 who got admission in a self-financed College at Poothotta and Smt. Shabana Yasmin, the other petitioner ranked no. 416 who got admission in the Muslim category in Government Law College, Thrissur.
Both of them appeared in the spot admission conducted on 27.10.2020 against the seats which were vacant after the process of allotment. The Commissioner for Entrance Examination issued a notification dated 16.11.2020 directing the respective Principals of the Law Colleges to conduct spot admission as against the 10% seats additionally sanctioned by the Bar Council provided they received approval from the Bar Council as well as orders from the Government. It was ordered that only those candidates who are included in the rank list published by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination but have not got admission in any Law Colleges so far, shall be considered against the 10% seats additionally sanctioned.
The Principal of Government Law College, Ernakulam issued a notification on 19.11.2020 announcing that spot admission would be conducted on 24.11.2020 against the seats remaining vacant under the EWS quota and against the 10% seats additionally sanctioned by the Bar Council. This notification also contained the very same condition that only those who are included in the rank list and who have not been admitted so far alone would be considered in the spot admission. The petitioners challenged this condition.
According to the petitioners, there is already a rank list or the spot admission conducted and therefore only after exhausting that list, the Principals shall make further admissions. It was their contention that the merit will be sacrificed in case only those who are not given admission so far are admitted. The learned counsel also pointed out that spot admission cannot be conducted against the additionally sanctioned seats, unlike the seats which remained vacant after conducting allotment in the regular process.
According to the learned Government Pleader, a decision has been taken not to permit those who already got admission in order to see that there is finality in the process of admission. In case those who already got admission are allowed to participate and they are admitted, the seats which are presently occupied by them would have again to be filled up and the process would go on. Relying on the judgment in Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and others the learned Government Pleader argued that there is no illegality in fixing the condition.
The court observed into the case Arvind Kumar Kankane v. State of U.P. and others, held -: It is clear that once an option is exercised by a candidate on the basis of which he is allotted the subject and thereafter that candidate is allowed to participate in subsequent counselling and his seat becomes vacant, the process of counselling will be endless and, as apprehended by the High Court, it may not be possible to complete the academic course within the stipulated period.
The Court dismissed the petition. The Court opined that it cannot be said that the decision taken by the Commissioner for Entrance Examination that the additional seats, as well as vacancies, shall be filled up only from among those who did not get admission, suffers from any illegality.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.