Salvia Hussain (Minor) vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20417 Ker

W. A. No. 1256 of 2021      -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 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
                      WA NO. 1256 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12412/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                       KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:

    1      SALVIA HUSSAIN (MINOR)
           AGED 17 YEARS
           REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER K.HUSSAIN, K.K.HOUSE,
           KOOTTIKADA P.O., THATTAMALA, KOLLAM-691020.
           (STUDYING IN STANDARD XII, NATIONAL PUBLIC
           SCHOOL, MUKHATHALA P.O., KOLLAM).
    2      SIBI WILSON (MINOR),
           AGED 17 YEARS
           REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER WILSON V. SAMUEL,
           REBOBOTH BHAVAN, KEDIKA, KAITHAPARAMP P.O.,
           PATHANAMTHITTA-691526. (STUDYING IN STANDARD XII,
           PADMASREE CENTRAL SCHOOL, ENATH, PATHANAMTHITTA).
    3      KERALA C.B.S.E. SCHOOL MANAGEMENTS ASSOCIATION,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY
           P.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, PENTA TOWER, KALOOR,
           KOCHI-682017.
           BY ADVS.
           P.B.KRISHNAN
           P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
           SABU GEORGE
           MANU VYASAN PETER


RESPONDENT/S:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
           DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    2      THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
           OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE
           EXAMINATIONS, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI
 W. A. No. 1256 of 2021          -2-

            NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    3       THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION,
            OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY
            EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    4       PRIVATE SCHOOL GRADUATE TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
            KERALA (PGTA), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
            SECRETARY, SUDHEER CHANDRAN, S.V.H.S., PULLAD
            P.O., THIRUVALLA, RESIDING AT SREE VIHAR,
            PUZHAVATHU, CHANGANACHERRY P.O., KOTTAYAM
            DISTRICT-686101.
OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. ASOK M CHERIAN, ADDL. AG FOR R1 TO R3,
            SRI. SIJI ANTONY FOR R4


     THIS    WRIT    APPEAL   HAVING     COME   UP    FOR    ADMISSION   ON
01.10.2021,    THE    COURT   ON   THE    SAME       DAY    DELIVERED    THE
FOLLOWING:
 W. A. No. 1256 of 2021            -3-




                           JUDGMENT

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

Petitioners are the appellants before this Court, challenging the

judgment of the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) No. 12412 of 2021

dated 17.09.2021 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the

writ petition along with other connected matters, declining to grant

any of the reliefs sought for by the petitioners.

2. The primary relief sought for by the petitioners was a

direction to the State of Kerala to provide admission to the

professional courses for the academic year 2020-21 within the State,

on the basis of the marks secured by candidates in the entrance

examination conducted by the Director of Higher Secondary

Education, the 3rd respondent, and for other related and consequential

reliefs .

3. The appellants are students who have completed their 12 th

standard during the current academic year i.e. 2020-2021 from a

school affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education

(CBSE). The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations invited

applications for admission to various professional courses, including

Engineering courses, through the entrance examination, for the

ensuing academic year, in terms of a notification issued on

31.05.2021.

4. In terms of Ext. P3 prospectus, the rank list for admission is

to be prepared by giving equal weightage to the score of the

candidates in the entrance examination, as also the marks in the

qualifying examination for the subjects Physics, Chemistry and

Mathematics, after standardizing the marks of the candidates in the

qualifying examination conducted by different Boards, applying the

formula provided in the prospectus for the said purpose.

5. It is the contention of the appellants that due to Covid - 19

pandemic, the qualifying examination was not conducted by the CBSE

during the current academic year, however, the State Board conducted

the qualifying examination, according to the appellants, in a

liberalized manner. Therefore, since the qualifying examination was

not conducted by the CBSE, the students who seek admission to

Engineering courses on the basis of the notional marks awarded to

them, would be prejudiced in their ranking, if they are treated at par

with the candidates who apply for admission on the strength of the

marks obtained by them in the qualifying examination conducted by

the State Board in a liberalized manner.

6. The appellants have also provided certain statistics such as,

the number of students secured A+ in the State Board examination has

escalated thrice when compared to the number of students who obtain

A+ last year.

7. It is also submitted that the number of students who obtained

full marks for Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, has also increased

several times compared to the last year.

8. Apparently, the appellants have filed a representation before

the State Government explaining the circumstances, however, the

State Government has not taken any action on the same, which

persuaded the appellants to approach the Writ Court.

9. In fact, almost similar writ appeals were considered by this

Court and they were dismissed, however, learned counsel for the

appellants have a case that those cases were materially different from

the case at hand, since those cases were filed after the students

participated in the entrance examinations, while the appellants herein

have challenged the prospectus prescribing standardisation prior to

their participation in the entrance examination.

10. Anyhow, so far as the students who have participated in the

examination without any objection, we have relied upon various

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in regard to the incompetence of

the students challenging the entrance examination procedure as per the

prospectus, and held that they are not entitled to challenge the

prospectus after participation in the examination. We have also held

that the contention with respect to the liberalized manner of

examination conducted by the State Board enabling the students

participated in the State Board examination to secure more A+ and

more full marks, cannot be gone into by a writ court, especially when

there are no sufficient and adequate materials before the Court to

substantiate the contention of the students.

11. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the findings rendered

by this Court in W. A. No. 1224 of 2021 dated 27.09.2021, applies to

the appellants herein also, even though they have challenged the

examination procedure prior to the conduct of the examination.

12. In a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, a writ court is not expected to go in depth and examine the

intricacies of the question papers set by the State Examination Board,

and as to whether it was in a liberalized form, since the writ Court do

not have the expertise to adjudicate in a writ proceeding such aspects

in a summary manner, and enter into any conclusive findings,

especially due to the fact that the question papers are set by the experts

in the field. The Constitutional Courts are not expected normally and

ordinarily to interfere in such academic matters and overturn the

formulations made by the state or its authorities, unless distinctive and

glaring illegalities are established that can topple the basic framework

of the constitutional mandates and thus rendering the proceedings

arbitrary and illegal. Apparently no such case was made out by the

petitioners before the writ court.

13. It was taking into account the said aspects and others in

regard to the contentions raised with respect to the marks awarded by

the State Board alone, the learned Single Judge has arrived at the

finding that the appellants are not entitled to get any reliefs as are

sought for in the writ petition.

On analyzing the facts and circumstances and taking into

account the contentions raised by the appellant, we are in respectful

agreement with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and in our

view, the appellants have failed to make out any case of jurisdictional

error or other legal infirmities in the Judgment liable to be interfered

in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court

Act, 1958.

Needless to say, writ appeal fails. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Eb

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE