Silpa Shaji vs University Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20921 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
    WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 20130 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SILPA SHAJI
          AGED 21 YEARS
          D/O.SHAJI.T.K, RESIDING AT KOORAPPALLICHIRAYIL,
          KURUPPAMKULANGARA, CHERTHALA-688539.

          BY ADV R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)



RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, SENAT HOUSE CAMPUS,
          PALAYAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

    2     REGISTRAR,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
          SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, PALAYAM,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695034.

    3     HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT,
          DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY,
          KARIAVATTOM CAMPUS OF UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
          KARYAVATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695581.

          BY ADV SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM, SC, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20130 OF 2021
                                    2


                              JUDGMENT

Petitioner, aged 21 years and belongs to SEBC, applied for

admission to M.A.Sociology Course of Post Graduate Programme

[Credit and Semester System] 2021-22 under the Department of

University of Kerala. In Ext.P2 application form, against the column

of 'Caste', petitioner referred to as General Candidate. Learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that 3 rd

respondent issued Ext.P3 memo dated 17.09.2021 informing the

petitioner of having provisionally ranked as No.19 in the waiting list

in open category and rank No.2 in General [BPL/EWS] category and

directed her to appear for interview on 23.09.2021 at 9.30 a.m. The

concerned Head of the Department - 3rd respondent verified the

documents, including the certificate of SEBC. But despite that the

candidature of the petitioner has not been considered. It is not the fact

that the petitioner had, at no other point of time, availed the benefit as

it is evident from Ext.P4 SSLC certificate issued by the Government

of Kerala. During the course of the argument a copy of the Non-

creamy Layer certificate dated 05.10.2021 has been produced. It was

next contended that she is daughter of a construction worker. WP(C) NO. 20130 OF 2021

2. On the other hand, Mr.Thomas Abraham, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the University submits that in Clause 4 of the

terms and conditions of the prospectus for admission, it was clearly

mentioned that the candidature of candidate would be seen only at the

time of the information provided in the application form. In other

words, the claims for mandatory reservation once made in the

application cannot be altered by the candidate under any

circumstances. On perusal of the application form against the column

'caste' it was filled as 'General'. Thus the benefit of 'SEBC' cannot be

granted. In case this writ court directs the respondents to consider the

same, it would amount to plethora of litigations by considering it as a

precedent. Rank list was published on 15.09.2021 and the first and

second round of counseling were conducted on 23.09.2021 and

24.09.2021.

3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the

paper book.

4. Clause 4 of the prospectus (Annexure R1(a) reads as

follows:

WP(C) NO. 20130 OF 2021

"4.CLAIMS FOR MANDATORY RESERVATION AND CERTIFICATES TO BE PRODUCED.

Claims for Mandatory Reservations must be made by a candidate at the time of submission of online application. Candidates should also mention the item of reservation claimed in the relevant columns in the online application. Candidates should also satisfy the eligibility conditions as per Clause 5 of the Prospectus. The claims for mandatory reservation once made in the application cannot be altered by the candidate under any circumstances."

5. Concededly in the application form against the column

'Caste', it has been referred to as 'General' instead of 'SEBC'. By

looking at the provisions of the Prospectus, the petitioner ought not to

have been even provisionally called for interview, but the respondents

by considering the candidate as General category, called her for

interview by placing her in the respective rank, that is rank No.19 in

open and rank No.2 in General [BPL/EWS] category. The terms and

conditions of the Prospectus were well known to the applicant. Even

though petitioner does not belong to Creamy Layer, the fact of the

matter is that this Court cannot direct the respondents to consider her

candidature under the SEBC category as it would settle the illegality

which cannot be permitted to be a practice in perpetuity.

6. Considering the fact that the petitioner belongs to a very WP(C) NO. 20130 OF 2021

downtrodden family, being the daughter of a construction worker, I

exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India as a special circumstance which is not to be

considered as a precedent, to direct the respondents that in case after

completion of the counseling process, if some seat is lying vacant,

preference be given to the petitioner by giving her sufficient time as

she is Covid positive.

The writ petition will stand as disposed of.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE scs WP(C) NO. 20130 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20130/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MARKLIST OF THE PETITIONER FOR SIXTH SEMESTER CBCS EXAMINATION APRIL 2021 WITH PRN 180021020409 DATED NIL

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETED APPLICATION FORM WITH APPLICATION NO.315952 DOWNLOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.09.2021

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 17-09-

2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SSLC ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA TO THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.R453228 DATED NIL.