Sonal S vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 1428 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                   &

             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 13TH MAGHA, 1943

                           WA NO. 135 OF 2022

 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21704/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:


          SONAL S.,
          AGED 18 YEARS
          S/O.DR.SURESAN,AGED 18 YEARS,SAHATHA,
          PARAMBIL PEEDIKA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 317.

          BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
          HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2     THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATION,
          5TH FLOOR,HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS,
          SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.


          SRI V.TEK CHAND SR GP


     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.A.No.135 of 2022
                                         2


                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2022

S.Manikumar, C.J.

Petitioner in the writ petition has filed this writ appeal

challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.

(C).No.21704 of 2021 dated 26.10.2021, whereby, the

following reliefs sought for by the appellant/petitioner in the

writ petition were declined and the writ petition was

dismissed.

"(1) Declare that the ranked list prepared for KEAM Engineering Examination by the respondents 1 and 2 by applying the standardization formula fixed in Clause 9.7.

4.(b)(iii) for this year is illegal and arbitrary; (2) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writs, direction or orders direct the respondents to prepare the ranked list for KEAM Engineering based on the marks obtained in the Entrance Examination alone or should prepare another standardization formula taking into account of the method of examinations and declaration of results conducted by the different examination Boards."

2. Basic facts for the disposal of the appeal are as

follows:

W.A.No.135 of 2022

According to the appellant, he has passed the XIIth standard

in the CBSE syllabus from Kuriakose Elias English Medium

School, Mannanam, Kottayam District, with 99.42% marks in

the year 2021. The minimum qualification required for higher

education in the State of Kerala is passing higher secondary

education in State syllabus, or higher secondary education in

CBSE syllabus or higher secondary education in ICSE syllabus.

It is an admitted fact that, as far as professional degree

courses in medicine, engineering, architecture etc. are

concerned, admissions are regulated on the basis of a rank list

prepared through a common entrance examination and the

students who secure 45% marks in the XIIth standard are

eligible to apply for the entrance examination.

3. The grievance of the appellant is that, for the

admissions in the engineering colleges in the State of Kerala

for the academic year 2021-22, it is proposed to render equal

weightage of 50:50 to the score obtained in the entrance

examination and the marks obtained in the XIIth standard,

which is unjust and illegal in the present scenario of the mode

of marks awarded in the XIIth standard of CBSE and ICSE W.A.No.135 of 2022

stream due to Covid - 19 pandemic and the way in which the

XIIth standard examination was conducted and the marks

awarded by the State Board.

4. It is submitted by the appellant that, for engineering

admissions, equal weightage of 50:50 score obtained in the

entrance examination and the marks obtained in the XIIth

standard has been in prevalence from 2011 onwards.

According to the appellant, during the 2020-21 academic year,

an altogether different situation prevailed as no Plus 2

examination has been conducted for CBSE and ICSE students

and instead, marks have been awarded on the basis of the

scheme submitted by the CBSE and ICSE.

5. But, in so far as the State syllabus and students are

concerned, a name sake examination has been conducted for

Plus 2 and a highly liberalized system of evaluation was done

in the light of the prevailing pandemic situation, and

resultantly, there was no proper evaluation of the academic

merit of the students who have completed Plus 2 course

during the academic year in question in any of the three basic

channels for higher studies.

W.A.No.135 of 2022

6. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by

the learned Counsel for the appellant is that, the marks of the

entrance examination alone ought to have been taken as

criteria for drawing up the rank list and providing admissions

to various professional courses within the State for the

academic year 2021-22.

7. The learned Single Judge, after taking into account

the provisions of the prospectus and relying upon various

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has arrived at the firm

conclusion that the appellant has not made out any case

justifying interference, exercising the power of discretion

conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant

Sri.Sajeev Kumar K.Gopal and learned Senior Government

Pleader Sri.V.Tekchand, appearing for the respondents and

perused the pleadings and the materials on record.

9. It is an admitted fact that appellant has participated in

the entrance examination in accordance with the stipulations

contained in Ext.P2 prospectus issued by the Commissioner

for Entrance Examinations, Kerala, for the academic year W.A.No.135 of 2022

2021-22 right from the submission of applications till the

admissions are made. The modality under which the

preparation of the rank list is clearly specified in the

prospectus, wherein, it is clearly specified that the rank list

would be prepared by giving equal weightage of 50:50 to the

score obtained in the entrance examination and the marks

obtained in the XIIth standard examination. On a reading of

the prospectus, it is clear that the prescriptions therein are

made on the basis of a formula of standardization approved

by the expert committee constituted by the government.

10. The basic contention advanced by the learned

counsel for the appellant is that, the learned single judge has

failed to take note of the fact that the examination conducted

by the State Board did not have sufficient standard and C.B.SE

and I.C.S.E, having not conducted any examination for plus 2

and a policy for evaluation was made for assessing the

general academic merit of the students for award of marks,

which cannot be equated with the marks awarded in a regular

examination, if standardization as stipulated in the prospectus

is done for preparation of the rank list for the professional W.A.No.135 of 2022

degree courses, it would materially affect the students who

have secured high marks in the qualifying Entrance

Examination conducted as per the prospectus in force.

11. In our considered opinion, the appellant has

participated in the Entrance Examination knowing fully well

that the standardization of the marks would be done in

accordance with the formula fixed by the State Government

as per the advice of the expert committee in the year 2011.

Basically, the appellant having participated in the Entrance

Examination knowing fully well the manner in which the rank

list would be prepared, cannot turn around and contend that

the provisions contained in the prospectus regarding the

standardization of the marks of the qualifying examination

and the entrance examination is illegal and arbitrary, which

thus means, that if the appellant had any objection to the

rules contained in the prospectus which is the rule of the

game, he ought to have challenged it before participating in

the examination. In absentia of any such attempt from the

part of the appellant, the action can only be viewed as an

afterthought and making a preparation for a future challenge W.A.No.135 of 2022

in the event of any eventualities adverse to the appellant in

the admission process.

12. The issue is no more res integra, since the Hon'ble

Apex Court had occasion to consider the said legal aspect in

its various judgments and it is only appropriate that some of

the judgments are referred to, enabling us to arrive at a

logical conclusion in respect to the arguments advanced by

the appellant, which were taken into account by us while

disposing of W.A.No.1224 of 2021 and which judgment has

been relied up on by the learned single Judge to dismiss the

writ petition.

13. In Dr.G.Sarana v. University of Lucknow and Others

AIR 1976 SC 2428, it was held by the Apex Court that the

petitioner who knew about the composition of the selection

committee and took a chance to be selected, cannot

thereafter question the constitution of the committee. In Om

Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986

supplementary SCC 285], wherein, a three-Judge bench held

that, petitioner appeared in the examination without any

protest was not entitled to challenge the result of the W.A.No.135 of 2022

examination. The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court

in Madan Lal v. State of J & K [(1997) 7 SCC 677], wherein,

the Apex Court in paragraph 9 held that, the petitioners who

have participated in the written test and oral interview on the

basis of the notification issued after the selection procedure

is over, is not entitled to attack the constitution of the

selection committee. In Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of

Bihar [(2010) 12 SCC 576], the aforesaid principle was

reiterated and held that the petitioner who has approached

the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

after finding that his name does not figure in the merit list

prepared by the commission, is not entitled to get any relief.

In Pradeep Kumar Rai and Others v. Dinesh Kumar Pandy

and Others [2015 11 SCC 493], the question considered was in

respect of a promotion to a post and the selection process

thereto, wherein the Apex Court held that the challenge to

selection process after participating in the interview and

declaration of adverse result, is not maintainable, since the

participation in the selection process was without raising any

objections.

W.A.No.135 of 2022

14. So also, we find that the prospectus was prepared by

the Government, taking into account the expert opinion in

regard to the manner in which the rank list has to be

prepared. In our considered opinion, the contentions raised by

the appellant with respect to the manner in which the State

Board has conducted the examinations and the evaluation

done by C.B.S.E and I.C.S.E, thus enabling the students to

secure more marks due to the peculiar nature of the

questions provided and performance assessed, respectively,

cannot be verified by the writ court in a proceeding under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

15. Furthermore, there are no materials produced by the

appellant before the writ court even prima facie to establish

such an averment made, so as to grant any relief to the

appellant and, therefore, the writ court was of the clear

opinion that the appellant is not entitled to secure any relief,

there being no arbitrariness or illegality.

16. Taking into account all the above aspects and legal

circumstances pointed out above, we have no hesitation to

hold that the appellant has not made out any case for W.A.No.135 of 2022

interference in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of

the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, there being no error of

exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction, or other legal

infirmities justifying interference. However, we deem it fit to

place on record the submission made by the learned counsel

for the appellant that though the appellant has secured Rank

No.68 in the KEAM admission list, he has taken admission in

the college of his own choice.

Needless to say, the appeal fails. Accordingly, it is

dismissed.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

Sd/-

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

Sd/-

Shaji P.Chaly Judge vpv //true copy//

P.A. to Judge