Kerala High Court
Shreyas Bejoy vs The Director Of Collegiate ... on 30 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 8TH ASWINA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 17986 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SHREYAS BEJOY, AGED 19 YEARS
S/O. BEJOY K.VIJAYAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, T.K.C ROAD,
VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM - 682023.
BY ADVS.
C.A.CHACKO
C.M.CHARISMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS
BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.
2 ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS)
BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682018, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGER.
3 THE PRINCIPAL
ST. ALBERT'S COLLEGE (AUTONOMOUS), BANERJI ROAD,
ERNAKULAM - 682018.
BY SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS, SC
BY SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 30.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.17986 of 2021 2
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.17986 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2021.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has applied for admission in the second
respondent College for B.Sc. (Mathematics) course in the quota
earmarked for sports personnel. Pursuant to the application, he
was called upon to attend the interview scheduled at 9.00 a.m.
on 01.09.2021. It is stated that the petitioner had taken the
first dose of COVID-19 vaccine on 30.08.2021 and he was
consequently not keeping well on 01.09.2021. It is also stated
that the petitioner could, therefore, appear before the College
authorities for interview only by about 12.00 noon on
01.09.2021. It is also stated that the petitioner was then
informed by the College authorities that since none appeared
for interview for admission against the sports quota at the
scheduled time, the sports quota seats were merged with
general quota. According to the petitioner, insofar as the seats
earmarked for sports personnel were not filled up by the
College authorities on the day specified for admission, the
petitioner should have been accommodated in one among the
said seats. The petitioner, therefore, seeks directions to the
College authorities to give him admission for B.Sc.
(Mathematics) course under the sports quota.
2. On 07.09.2021, this Court passed an interim
order directing the third respondent, the Principal of the
College not to fill up one seat available for the B.Sc.
(Mathematics) course.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
the College stating, among others, that in terms of the
admission schedule published by the College, the time fixed for
interview for admission against sports quota was 9.00 a.m. on
01.09.2021 and since none appeared for the interview at the
scheduled time, the sports quota seats were merged with
general quota as provided for in the prospectus published in
connection with the admission for the course. It is also stated
in the counter affidavit that by about 11.00 am on 07.09.2021,
even the general quota seats including the sports quota seats
merged with the same were filled up.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as
also the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, the College
and the Principal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued
that insofar as the petitioner has appeared for the interview on
the day fixed for the interview itself and insofar as the general
quota seats were not filled up by the College by then, the
petitioner should have been given admission against the sports
quota.
6. Per contra, placing reliance on a provision in
the prospectus published in connection with the admission for
the course which is extracted in the counter affidavit, the
learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 contended that the
College has only acted in terms of the prospectus. It was also
contended that the College is bound to follow the provisions in
the prospectus and any deviation from the prospectus will
disturb the admission process. The learned counsel has relied
on the decision of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court
in State of T.N. and Others v. G. Sumathi and Others,
1999 KHC 3534, in support of the proposition that the students
who are seeking admission to a course are bound by the terms
of the prospectus, and they cannot claim admission otherwise
than in accordance with the terms of the prospectus.
7. On a query from the Court, the learned counsel
for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that though the interim
order passed by this Court on 07.09.2021 was not served on
the College by the petitioner on time, one of the seats
earmarked for admission to B.Sc. (Mathematics) Course under
the management quota has not been filled up in the light of the
said interim order.
8. In terms of the admission schedule published
by the College, the petitioner should have appeared for the
interview for admission against sports quota at 9.00 a.m. on
01.09.2021. The petitioner does not dispute the said fact. He
admits that he could appear for the interview only by about
12.00 noon on the said day. The fact that the petitioner
appeared for the interview by about 12.00 noon on 01.09.2021
is not disputed by the College also. As noted, the stand of the
College is that insofar as none appeared for the interview for
admission against the sport quota seats at the time specified,
the sports quota seats were merged with the general quota
seats and it is on account of the said reason that admission
was denied to the petitioner. The relevant portion of the
prospectus relied on by the College for taking the aforesaid
stand reads thus:
"If Vacancies arise due to discontinuation of candidates
under Sports/Cultural/PD quotas, the next eligible
candidate in the Rank list shall be admitted. In case
there is no next eligible candidate, the vacant seat shall
be merged with the general merit quota."
As evident from the extracted provision, what is provided for
therein is that if vacancies arise due to discontinuation of
candidates under Sports/Cultural/PD quotas, the vacant seat
shall be merged with the general quota. The case on hand is
not a case of discontinuation. As such, according to me, the
said clause cannot have any application to the facts of the
present case. Be that as it may, Ext.R2(A) admission schedule
would show that the date fixed for admission against sports
quota was 01.09.2021. Ext.R2(A) does not indicate the date
fixed for admission against general quota. There is no
averment in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3
as to the date and time fixed for admission against general
quota. On the other hand, the averments in the counter
affidavit would show that general quota seats were filled up
only on 07.09.2021. In other words, even assuming that there
is a provision in the prospectus to the effect that unfilled sports
quota seats will be merged with the general quota, the
question of merger of seats would arise only when general
quota seats are filled up. It is thus evident that there was
absolutely no impediment on 01.09.2021 in giving admission to
the petitioner for the course under the sports quota. Of
course, the position would have been different had the next
eligible candidate was admitted for the course against the
sport quota by the time the petitioner appeared for the
interview. Insofar as none appeared for the interview for
admission against sports quota for the B.Sc. (Mathematics)
course on the date and time fixed, according to me, the College
ought to have given admission to the petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed and
respondents 2 and 3 are directed to admit the petitioner for the
B.Sc. (Mathematics) course against the sports quota, forthwith.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
ds 28.09.2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17986/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF MERIT CERTIFICATES OF
PETITIONER IN SPORTS.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL SPORTS RANK LIST
FOR B.SC. (MATHEMATICS)
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF
NOTIFICATION REGARDING SCHEDULE OF
ADMISSION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE
FOR COVID - 19, VACCINATION 1ST DOSE
DATED. 30.08.2021.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
1.9.2021 GIVEN TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION SCHEDULE
ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE.
Exhibit R2(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS OF
ADMISSION TO UNDER GRADUATE PROGRAM
2021-2022.
