Neha Ali E vs Cochin University Of Science And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9956 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 9TH BHADRA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 27274 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

           NEHA ALI E.
           AGED 21 YEARS
           D/O.SHRI ALIKOYA, ERATHALI HOUSE, THULAMUTTAM
           PARAMBU, MATHOTTAM, ARAKKINA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673
           028.
           BY ADVS.
           PREMCHAND R.NAIR
           PREEJA V.P.
           V.P.PRASANTH
           ANUJA S. NAIR


RESPONDENTS:

     1     COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY -
           (CUSAT),REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY
           ROAD, KALAMASSERRY, KOCHI - 682 022.
     2     THE DIRECTOR
           SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES (SMS), COCHIN
           UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY
           ROAD, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 022.




           D.G.VIPIN -SC,CUSAT



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.08.2022,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                         2



W.P.(C) No. 27274 of 2022.




                                JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of August, 2022.

The petitioner alleges that she has been denied

admission to a Full Time course in MBA by the Cochin

University of Science and Technology (CUSAT),

though she had applied for it. She alleges that,

however, she was allotted to the Part Time course

and that, under pressure, she was forced to remit

fees for it; but that she was promised that she would

be shifted to the Full Time course.

2. The petitioner says that, however, when she

made a request for the same, it has been rejected

W.P.(C) No. 27274 of 2022.

solely saying that another candidate in the rank list

for Full Time course has objected to it. She asserts

that this stand of the CUSAT is illegal; and therefore,

prays that they be directed to consider her for the

Full Time course de hors any objection by another

student, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. The afore submissions made by

Sri.Premchand R. Nair - learned counsel for the

petitioner, were answered by Sri.T.G.Vipin - learned

Standing Counsel for the CUSAT, saying that

petitioner was allotted to the Part Time course only

because she had applied for it. He submitted that,

once the petitioner had paid fees for the said course,

it was not possible for her to have sought to be

W.P.(C) No. 27274 of 2022.

shifted to the Full Time course, unless there was a

vacancy. He submitted that, it is in such

circumstances and since there is no other vacancy,

that the University has been incapacitated from

acceding to the request of the petitioner, particularly

when another student, so allotted, will have to be

disturbed.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is

evident that the disputation between the parties is as

to how and in what manner the petitioner had

applied for the course in question. If she had indeed

applied for the Part Time course and had paid the

fees voluntarily, then certainly, her case for being

shifted to the MBA course cannot be as a matter of

W.P.(C) No. 27274 of 2022.

right, but only as an indulgence.

5. Therefore, it is now necessary that CUSAT

hear the petitioner, as also any other student who

has objected to her claim, to verify whether she had

applied for a Part Time course and whether she had

been allotted the same, solely on the basis of such

choice. To paraphrase, if the petitioner had applied

to the Full Time course, but had been allotted only to

the Part Time course, certainly, the scenario is

different.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the

competent authority of the CUSAT to hear the petitioner,

as also any other student who has objected to her claim;

thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary

W.P.(C) No. 27274 of 2022.

action, adverting to my afore objections, as expeditiously

as is possible, but not later than 3 weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Raj.

31.08.2022.

W.P.(C) No. 27274 of 2022.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27274/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SCORE CARD FOR KMAT 2022 (ENTRANCE EXAMINATION TO MBA- 2022) ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS DATED 25/5/2022. Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROVISIONAL RANK LIST FOR MBA COURSE IN WHICH THE PETITIONER'S NAME IS INCLUDED AS RANK NO.161, DATED NIL.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT OF FEES FOR THE MBA PART TIME (NON-EXPERIENCED) DATED 02/08/2022. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/08/2022.