Kerala High Court
Amina Khaleel vs The State Of Kerala on 11 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.480 OF 2021(H)
PETITIONER:
AMINA KHALEEL
AGED 20 YEARS, D/O. A.M.KHALEEL,
AMEENA MANZIL, H.NO.318, WARD NO.11, KUNDUMON,
VELLICHIKKALA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691573.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.M.SANEER
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM-695001.
3 THE ADMISSION AND FEE REGULATORY COMMITTEE FOR
PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
M.P.APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHAKKAD, TRIVANDRUM-695014.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. V. MANU- SR. G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) No.480/2021 -2-
JUDGMENT
DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
Shaffique, J:
This writ petition has been filed inter alia seeking for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order
or direction to direct the 2nd respondent to receive and accept
the petitioner's documents for verification in the NRI category,
if presented before 2 PM on 08-01-2021.
(ii) To declare that petitioner was eligible to be considered
as a SEBC candidate, for admission in the NRI category for
admission to MBBS in 2020-21.
(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order
or direction to direct the 2nd respondent to consider petitioner
as a SEBC candidate eligible for admission for MBBS for this
year;
(iv) to grant such other reliefs as are just and proper in the
nature of this case."
2. When the matter came up for hearing on 07-01-2021
we passed an interim order. The learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the candidate involved in the matter
did not apply under Socially and Educationally Backward
Community (SEBC) while submitting the online application.
Subsequently she could obtain a certificate indicating that she is
entitled for the benefit of SEBC. We therefore issued an interim
order permitting the petitioner to produce all such records
before the competent authority and the competent authority was
directed to consider those documents and pass appropriate
orders. Though the documents were produced before the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, the competent
authority having considered the documents observed that the
candidate has not produced the Non Creamy Layer Certificate
from the respective revenue authority for the State Government
education purposes and therefore she is ineligible for SEBC
quota.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
certificate produced by the petitioner is sufficient enough to
consider under SEBC category. Learned Government Pleader
however submit that though this court had mentioned in interim
order dated 07-01-2021 that the Government Pleader had
offered to consider the documents produced with reference to
the claim of SEBC benefit, no such submission was made. Of
course the learned Government Pleader had only stated that the
competent authority will consider whatever documents that are
produced by the candidates. He had not specifically mentioned
documents relating to SEBC. We clarify the interim order to that
extent.
4. Now considering the claim of the writ petitioner,
admittedly she did not apply claiming SEBC. The position of law
is rather clear from the Division Bench judgment in Anushka
D.A. v. State of Kerala decided on 28-10-2020 (W.A.
No.1404/2020) wherein after considering similar situation
another Division Bench of this court had held as under:-
"6. The sole issue for consideration is whether any
manner of interference is required to the judgment of the
learned Single Judge ? Apparently in the prospectus
issued, time limits were fixed for submitting the
application and uploading documents required to consider
the applications in reserved category and others. Even
according to the appellant, the Non Creamy Layer
Certificate submitted by the appellant was issued by the
Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk Office, whereas as
per the prospectus, the Non Creamy Layer Certificate was
to be produced from the Village Officer of the Village
concerned. Anyhow appellant came to know about the
defect on 11.9.2020 and has submitted application before
a wrong Village Officer i.e, Village Officer, Pangappara
Village Office, Thiruvananthapuram instead of Village
Officer, Attipra Village Office. Anyhow the last date for
uploading the certificate was 29.9.2020 and the appellant
could secure the certificate finally from the Village Officer
concerned only on 7.10.2020. The submission of the
application seeking Non-Creamy Layer Certificate before a
wrong Village Officer was not a contributory factor to find
fault with the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations.
Case of the appellant is that, the Village Officer of
Pangappara Village went on leave immediately after
submitting the application and resumed office only on
6.10.2020. But the Village Officer, Pangappara Village
Office was not the Village Officer concerned so far as the
appellant is concerned and it was the Attipra Village
Officer, who had to issue certificate to the appellant. That
apart when a time limit is fixed in accordance with the
prospectus issued, all are duty bound to upload the
certificate in accordance with the schedule contained in
the prospectus. Admittedly appellant could not upload the
certificate on or before 29.9.2020.
7. The question with respect to the consequences
leading to non submission of certificates within the time
was considered by this Court in W.A.No.1080/2020 and
W.A No.1183/2020 and has rendered judgments dated
14.8.2020 and 14.9.2020, wherein it was held that the
appellants are duty bound to upload the certificates within
the time period prescribed in the prospectus by the
concerned authority."
In the light of the aforesaid factual situation, we don't think that
the petitioner is entitled to any relief. Writ petition is therefore
dismissed.
(Sd/-)
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
(Sd/-)
GOPINATH P., JUDGE.
AMG
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROSPECTUS LIST
ON PAGES 93 & 94 OF THE KEAM 2020 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE SCORE CARD OF THE PETITIONER FOR NEET.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE STATE RANK LIST
FOR ADMISSION TO MBBS.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE JUDGMENTS DATED 5.1.2021 IN WP(C)
NO.200/21 & ORS OF THIS HON. COURT.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 5.1.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED 3.11.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
