The Controller Of Examination ... vs Devinileena P.S
2021 Latest Caselaw 22719 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021/28TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                     RP NO. 544 OF 2021
          AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.03.2021 IN
     WP(C) 3159/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM


REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

         THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATION (AGRIL. EDN.),
         AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION DIVISION,
         INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
         KRISHI ANUSANDHAN BHAVAN-II,
         PUSA, NEW DELHI 110 012.

         BY ADV SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SC, ICAR


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER &
1 & ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT IN WP(C):

    1    DEVINILEENA P.S., AGED 19 YEARS,
         D/O. P.S. SUPAL, PANAYIL VEEDU,
         YEROOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 312.

    2    KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY,
         KAU MAIN CAMPUS, KAU P.O.,
         VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR, KERALA 680 656,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

    3    THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
         5TH FLOOR, KSHB BUILDING,
         S.S. KOVIL ROAD, SANTHI NAGAR,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 001.

         R1 BY ADV.SRI. MANOJ RAMASWAMY
         R2 BY ADV.SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC
         R3 BY SMT.VINITHA B., SR.G.P.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 R.P.No.544/2021 in WP(C)No.3159/2021

                                      2




                                 ORDER

Dated this the 19th day of November, 2021

By the judgment in WP(C)No.3159/2021 dated

23.03.2021, this Court directed that in case the

Commissioner for Entrance Examination is furnishing a list,

that list shall be confined to only 19 candidates and the 2 nd

respondent shall take appropriate action to see that such

mistakes do not occur in the counselling to be made in

future. The petitioner was directed to accommodate against

one among the 20 seats either in the General or in the OBC

category. It is an admitted position that the judgment has

been complied with and the writ petitioner has been

admitted to the Course. However, the 2 nd respondent in the

writ petition is before this Court seeking to review the

judgment.

R.P.No.544/2021 in WP(C)No.3159/2021

2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner

submitted that in paragraph 10, this Court has held that "it

would appear that the 2nd respondent has not done the

counselling seriously as is done for admission to Medicine,

Engineering etc." This Court again in the operative portion

of the judgment observed that "the 2 nd respondent shall take

appropriate action to see that such mistakes do not occur in

the counselling to be made in future".

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner

submits that method of counselling followed by the review

petitioner and the one followed for Medicine and

Engineering are different. Those counsellings cannot be

compared with. The observation of this Court as contained

in Ext.P10 was made solely on the basis of the criteria

adopted in the counselling conducted in Medicine and

Engineering Course. The method of counselling followed by

the review petitioner is also an effective one. The 1 st R.P.No.544/2021 in WP(C)No.3159/2021

respondent has been conducting the counselling in that

method for last so many years.

4. For the same reason, this Court ought not have

directed the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action to see

that such mistakes do not occur in the counselling to be

made in future. Such observations will seriously affect the

stature of the 1st respondent as the Controller of

Examination. It may be a reason for other candidates to

agitate similar issues in future based on these observations.

In the circumstances, the judgment of this Court is liable to

be reviewed to that limited extent.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the review

petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1 st

respondent.

6. A perusal of the judgment dated 23.03.2021 in

WP(C)No.3159/2021 would show that this Court had

sufficient grounds to interfere in the matter and direct that R.P.No.544/2021 in WP(C)No.3159/2021

the petitioner should be included in the admission process.

Even in the absence of the observations made in paragraph

10 and in the operative portion of the judgment, the

directions issued in the judgment can be sustained.

7. In view of the facts now pointed out by the

learned counsel for the review petitioner, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the observations of this Court

contained in paragraph 10 and the operative portion of the

judgment need not be taken as adverse comments on the

method of counselling followed by the 1 st respondent in the

counselling process.

8. It is accordingly declared that the observation in

paragraph 10 of the judgment in WP(C)No.3159 of 2021

that "it would appear that the 2 nd respondent has not done

the counselling seriously as is done for admission to

Medicine, Engineering etc." and the direction in the

operative portion of the judgment that "the 2 nd respondent R.P.No.544/2021 in WP(C)No.3159/2021

shall take appropriate action to see that such mistakes do

not occur in the counselling to be made in future" would

stand removed.

The review petition is allowed to the aforesaid limited

extent.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd/19.11.2021