Kerala High Court
Neha Sebastian (Minor) vs The Government Of Kerala on 5 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/15TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.26925 OF 2020(M)
PETITIONERS:
1 NEHA SEBASTIAN (MINOR), AGED 17 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY THE FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND
C.H.SEBASTIAN, THE 2ND PETITIONER, CHELLERIAN,
KARAPARAMAPA, KAVUVISSERY, KOZHIKODE-673010.
2 C.H.SEBASTIAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O. CHARLEY, CHELLERIAN, KARAPARAMBA,
KAVUVISSERY, KOZHIKODE-673 010.
BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION,
MEDICAL COLLEGE, KUMARAPURAM ROAD,
CHALAKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
3 LBS CENTRE FOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, EXTARA POLICE ROAD,
NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.
R3 BY ADV.SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
R1-R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT RASHMI K.M.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.26925/2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021
The 1st petitioner who is a Christian converted from
Pulaya community is seeking admission to B.Sc. Nursing
Course for the current year pursuant to Ext.P5 allotment. It
is the 1st petitioner's case that she is eligible for being
considered for admission under Other Eligible Communities
(OEC) category. In the application submitted by the 1 st
petitioner, the 1st petitioner had made a claim for the benefits
available to OEC category.
2. The 1st petitioner states that allotment was
granted to the 1st petitioner which has been subsequently
cancelled by the respondents. The 1st petitioner therefore
sought quashing the decision of the 3 rd respondent declining
the eligibility of the 1st petitioner for allotment under OEC
quota.
WP(C)No.26925/2020
3. It is not disputed that members belonging to OEC
categories are entitled to get the benefit of reservation
against the unavailed seats allocated to the SC/ST
candidates. According to the Standing Counsel for the 3 rd
respondent there were 40 seats allocated for SC and ST.
The 1st petitioner's rank in the said rank list is 14774.
4. The Standing Counsel submitted that in the
second round of allotment, it was decided to give the 1 st
petitioner allotment treating her as being eligible to EWS
quota. That was a mistake. When the mistake was noted,
the said allocation was freezed even before the third
allotment. Since all the seats reserved in SC/ST have been
allotted to SC/ST candidates, only if and when such
candidates fail to join the course, benefit can be given to
OEC category.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that since the 1st petitioner has already been
allotted a seat, the 1st petitioner cannot exercise her option
WP(C)No.26925/2020
for availing admission against seats that may be available to
the OEC, under spot allocation.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3 rd
respondent would submit that since the allotment granted to
the 1st petitioner is already freezed, the 1st petitioner can
exercise her options for availing seats allocable to OEC, if,
any, under spot admission and the 3rd respondent will permit
the 1st petitioner to exercise such option.
7. The allotment of seat to the petitioner as per
Ext.P5 is by mistake. Therefore, no relief can be granted to
the 1st petitioner based thereon. Since the seats allocable to
SC/ST candidates are already allotted, whether the 1 st
petitioner would be eligible for reservation against unavailed
seats of SC/ST can be decided only as and when such
allocated SC/ST candidates fail to join the course. If any of
such SC/ST candidates fail to join the course, definitely
those seats will be filled up by spot admission. In such
event, since the 3rd respondent has already stated that
WP(C)No.26925/2020
the 1st petitioner will be permitted to exercise option for
those seats, this Court finds that the writ petition can be
disposed of with necessary directions.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of
recording the submissions made by the learned standing
counsel for the 3rd respondent that in view of the freezing of
the allocation already made to the 1 st petitioner, the 1st
petitioner will be permitted to exercise her option for availing
seats under the OEC category in further spot admissions. If
unavailed seats of SC/ST are available, the 1 st petitioner will
be entitled to exercise option for allocation of seat under
OEC category, in which case the 3rd respondent shall
consider the same in accordance with law.
With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH
JUDGE
ncd
WP(C)No.26925/2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION CALLING FOR
APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION, DATED
24.7.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER THROUGH ONLINE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT-OUT FROM THE
WEBSITE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT SHOWING THE
VERIFICATION OF APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGERI TO
THE 1ST PETITIONER, DATED 3.8.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF THE RANK
LIST FROM THE WEB SITE OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT, SHOWING THE NAME OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINT-OUT
SHOWING THE SEAT ALLOTMENT TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ONLINE RECEIPT
EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF FEES, DATED
13.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION FROM
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PROSPECTUS ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LIST IN THE
2ND AND 3RD ALLOTMENT IN GOVERNMENT NURSING COLLEGE,
KOZHIKODE
