Kerala High Court
Fida T vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2025
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1699 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.24976 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HIGHER
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
K.S.R.T.C. BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SRI.P.G. PRAMOD, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 GARRY VINO GEORGE
AGED 18 YEARS
KULATHUNKAL HOUSE, VADAKODE.P.O. KANGARAPADI,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682021
2 AASIM ABDULLA, AGED 18 YEARS
PUNNILATH HOUSE, BHARATH NAGAR, KODUNGALLOOR,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680664
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
2
SRI. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR)
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
SRI.EBEE ANTONY
SRI.AITH GEORGE KOOLA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).25230/2025, 1700/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025/19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1700 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.24951 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT. HIGHER EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2 COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
7TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SRI.P.G. PRAMOD, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 GOUTHAM S., AGED 18 YEARS
S/O. SUNIL KUMAR S., SHIVAM HOUSE, VRINDHAVAN,
WEST KADUNGALLOOR P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683110
2 DEVIKA B.S., AGED 19 YEARS
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
4
D/O. BIJU P.S., RESIDING AT FIRST FLOOR, DEEPAM,
EVRA LANE 11, VENNALA P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682028
3 FARHAAN NOUFAL.,
S/O. NOUFAL MOOSA MOIDUTTY, KAROTTU MANGALASSERIL
HOUSE, SOUHRADHA NAGAR A-42, KARIPPAI -
SUNDARAGIRI ROAD, NORTH KALAMASSERY P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683104
4 MERIN GEORGE P., AGED 18 YEARS
D/O.VIMALA MATHEW, POTTUKULATHIL HOUSE,
KUTHIRAVATTOM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673016
5 HADIYA THANVEER., D/O. FIBIN KOMU, 5/783A,
NEAR P.SEKHARAN MANDIRAM, RARICHAN ROAD,
ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
6 MADHAVAN R. MUNJANATTU,
S/O.RAKESH P., HOUSE NO.19/30 F, 8TH MILE,
VENNIMALA ROAD, VELOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER RAKESH P. AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. P. PRASAD, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.19/30 F, 8TH
MILE, VENNIMALA ROAD, VELOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686501
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SMT.M.ISHA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1699/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1701 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.25180 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION (G) DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS,
7TH FLOOR, KSRTC BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
BY ADVS.
SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SRI.P.G. PRAMOD, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SHIFA FAAIZA P.M., AGED 18 YEARS
D/O. P.K.MOHAMMAD, PATHUVANA HOUSE, ROCK WELL
ROAD, H.M.T. COLONY P.O., KALAMASSERY,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683503
BY ADVS.
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
6
SRI.T.B.HOOD
SMT.M.ISHA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1699/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1702 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.07.2025 IN WP(C) NO.24767 OF
2025 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 COMMISSIONER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATION
7TH FLOOR, KSRTC COMPLEX, OVERBRIDGE, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036
BY ADVS.
SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SRI.P.G. PRAMOD, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN WP(C):
1 HANA FATIMA AHINUS, AGED 18 YEARS
D/O. AHINUS H RESIDINGESHAL, PUTHUSSERIMALA,
VADACODE P.O PUTHIYAROAD, THRIKKAKARA NORTH,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
8
2 ANAN SOURE, AGED 17 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY FATHER SUBHASH KUMAR.A, S/O. BALAN,
AVATTATT, MEPPAYUR, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673524
3 VIVEK P.B, AGED 18 YEARS
S/O. BALAN P.N, PERUGANDOOR HOUSE, NEAR SILENT
STREET, CHETTUPUZHA P.O, THRISSUR, PIN - 680012
SHRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE
SMT.P.V.PARVATHY (P-41)
SMT.REENA THOMAS
SMT.NIGI GEORGE
SHRI.ANANTHU V.LAL
SMT.SHERIN VARGHESE
SHRI.BRAHMA R.K.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1699/2025 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025/19TH ASHADHA, 1947
WP(C) NO.25230 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 FIDA T., AGED 18 YEARS
D/O. HANAS T., FC 2, NIT FACULTY QUARTERS, NIT
CALICUT, NIT CAMPUS, CHATHAMANGALAM P.O.,
KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673601
2 ANJIKA ANIL, AGED 17 YEARS
(MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER ANIL KUMAR V.,
HARI CHANDANAM, ANCHAL P.O.,
PADINJATTINKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691306
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
SHRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
SHRI.BHARATH MOHAN
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE CONTROLLER OF ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS
7TH FLOOR, K.S.R.T.C. BUS TERMINAL COMPLEX,
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
10
THAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY
SRI.P.G. PRAMOD, SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.1699/2025 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
11
"C.R"
JUDGMENT
Anil K. Narendran, J.
W.A.Nos.1699, 1700, 1701 and 1702 of 2025 filed by the
State of Kerala and others under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High
Court Act, 1958 arise out of a common judgment dated
09.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.24976,
24951, 25180 and 24767 of 2025. The said writ petitions were
filed by the respondent(s) in W.A.Nos.1699, 1700 and 1701 of
2025 and respondents 1 and 2 in W.A.No.1702 of 2025.
Respondents 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1702 of 2025 are additional
respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025.
2. The petitioners in those writ petitions are students
who have completed 12th Standard education from the CBSE
stream of syllabus. For pursuing professional degree courses in
Engineering, they submitted online applications in response to
the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses-
2025 (for brevity, 'Prospectus-2025') issued by the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala (for brevity,
'CEE, Kerala'). They appeared for the entrance examination
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
KEAM-2025 for Engineering courses, held from 22.04.2025 to
30.04.2025. Additional respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.(C)No.24767
of 2025, who are respondents 3 and 4 in W.A.No.1702 of 2025,
are students who have completed 12th Standard education in
Kerala Higher Secondary stream.
3. The common challenge in the writ petitions was
against G.O.(Ms.)No.470/2025/HEDN dated 01.07.2025 issued
by the State of Kerala, whereby the standardization formula in
the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses-
2025 was changed by the State. The said order is one issued
invoking the provisions under Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus-2025,
which was approved by the Government vide G.O.(Ms.)No.97/
2025/HEDN dated 19.02.2025, on the ground that there exists a
disparity while standardising the marks of those students who
completed 12th Standard education in Kerala Higher Secondary
stream and other streams, including CBSE. Other consequential
reliefs were also sought for in the writ petitions.
4. In W.P.(C)No.24951 of 2025, the 2nd respondent
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala, has filed a
counter affidavit dated 08.07.2025, opposing the reliefs sought
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
for, producing therewith Ext.R2(a) calculation statement of
standardised marks in respect of the writ petitioners, who are
CBSE students and those candidates with identical marks in the
Kerala Higher Secondary stream, using the earlier method and
new method of standardization. In W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025 also,
the 2nd respondent Commissioner for Entrance Examinations has
filed a counter affidavit dated 07.07.2025.
5. After considering the rival contentions, the learned
Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025,
disposed of the writ petitions subject to the observations and
directions contained therein. The learned Single Judge found that
after the conduct of the entrance examination, the Government
is denuded of its power, even under Clause 1.6 of the
Prospectus-2025, to change the prospectus. Rules of the game
cannot be changed midway, once the game has begun. Prima
facie, it appears that somebody looked at the results and found
that students from the Kerala stream have not done fairly good.
To satisfy the constituency, such a mala fide decision has been
taken, in an arbitrary manner, to change the Prospectus on
01.07.2025, one hour before the publication of the result. Such
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
an exercise of power is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and
cannot be countenanced on any ground. The learned Single
Judge noticed that though the learned Senior Government
Pleader has vehemently supported the decision of the
Government, he has no answer for the manner in which the
Prospectus was changed on 01.07.2025, one hour before the
rank list was published. Therefore, the learned Single Judge held
that the change in the Prospectus, one hour before the
publication of the rank list after the examination, is wholly
unjustified, illegal and arbitrary. In the impugned judgment, the
learned Single Judge set aside the change in the Prospectus and
the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, Kerala, is directed
to publish the rank list in accordance with the Prospectus, which
was issued on 19.02.2025.
6. Challenging the common judgment dated 09.07.2025
of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)N.24767 of 2025 and
connected matters, the State of Kerala and the official
respondents are before this Court in W.A.Nos.1699, 1700, 1701
and 1702 of 2025.
7. The connected writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.25230 of
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
2025, is listed before the Division Bench based on the order
passed today (10.07.2025) by the learned Single Judge.
Considering the urgency, the Registry has placed the matter
before the Division Bench, as directed by Registrar (Judicial),
subject to ratification by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The said
writ petition is one filed by two students who have completed
12th Standard education from the CBSE stream of syllabus,
challenging G.O.(Ms.)No.470/2025/HEDN dated 01.07.2025
issued by the State of Kerala and for other consequential reliefs.
8. The writ appeals are moved as 'today motion'. We
heard detailed arguments of the learned Advocate General for
the State and its officials, the appellants in W.A.Nos.1699, 1700,
1701 and 1702 of 2025, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents-petitioners in W.A.No.1699 of 2025, the learned
counsel for the respondents-petitioners in W.A.No.1700 of 2025,
the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner in W.A.No.1701
of 2025, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2-petitioners
in W.A.No.1702 of 2025, the learned counsel for respondents 3
and 4 in W.A.No.1702 of 2025 (who are additional respondents 3
and 4 in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025) and also the learned Senior
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025.
9. The learned Advocate General would submit that the
Government have ample power under Clause 1.6 of the
Prospectus-2025 to modify or replace the formula for
standardization of the marks obtained by the students in the
qualifying examinations and draw the rank list based on the
modified formula. The Government appointed an expert
committee to review the standardization formula leading to the
preparation of the rank list, when found necessary. The
Government, on examining the available materials, found it
proper to amend the Prospectus-2025 and prepared the rank list
on the basis of the amended provisions. On account of the
amendment, no group of students is placed in a disadvantageous
position, as the amendment was for removing disparity. There is
no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The
standardization formula and its modification fall within the
domain of the State Government and its expertise regarding the
modalities and intricacies involved in the standardization of the
marks. The modification of the standardization formula would not
amount to change of the rules of the game midway. The findings
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
to the contra in the judgment of the learned Single Judge are per
se arbitrary and patently illegal, which warrants interference in
these writ appeals. The learned Advocate General would place
reliance on the Division Bench decisions of this Court in
Dr.Vinod K.M. and others v. State of Kerala and others
[2012 (2) KHC 797], Sreeja S. and others v. State of
Kerala and others [2013 (1) KHC 230] and Seema
Sebastain v. State of Kerala [2023 (3) KHC 284]. The
learned Advocate General would also place reliance on the
decisions of the Apex Court in Rachit Sinha v. Union of India
[AIR 2018 SC 2153] and Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan
High Court [(2025) 2 SCC 1].
10. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents-petitioners in W.A.No.1699 of 2025, the learned
Counsel for the respondents-petitioners in W.A.No.1700 of 2025,
the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner in W.A.No.1701
of 2025 and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2-
petitioners in W.A.No1702 of 2025 would contended that Clause
1.6 of the Prospectus-2025 does not enable the Government to
modify the formula for standardization of the marks obtained by
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
the students in the qualifying examinations in the midway, since
it would amount to change of the rules of the game midway, as
rightly found by the learned Single Judge. The decision taken by
the Government, vide the order dated 01.07.2025, to modify the
formula of standardization is vitiated by malafides, which has
been taken one hour before the publication of the result of the
entrance examination. The learned Single Judge rightly found
that such an exercise of power by the State Government is
wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and cannot be countenanced
on any ground. They would place reliance of the decision of the
Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court
[(2025) 2 SCC 1]. They would also place reliance of the
decisions of this Court in Dr.Vinod K.M. and others v. State of
Kerala and others [2012 (2) KHC 797] and Jumni Nasry v.
State of Kerala and others [2024:KER:20723]. The learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025
adopted the very same arguments.
11. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 in
W.A.No.1702 of 2025 (who are additional respondents 3 and 4 in
W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025) would adopt the arguments of the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
learned Advocate General. The learned counsel would point out
that the modification of the formula of standardization
necessitated since there exists a disparity while standardising
the marks of those students who completed 12th Standard
education in Kerala Higher Secondary stream and other streams,
including CBSE.
12. Since the report dated 02.06.2025 of the
Standardization Review Committee constituted by the State
Government and the report dated 05.06.2025 of the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, which are referred to
the Government order dated 01.07.2025, are not part of the
pleadings, the learned Advocate General was directed to make
available for the perusal of this Court copy of those reports. As
instructed by the learned Advocate General, the learned Senior
Government Pleader obtained copy of the said reports, which are
made available for the perusal of this Court. Copy of the said
reports were provided to the learned Senior Counsel/learned
counsel for the respondents in the writ appeals and also to the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.25230 of
2025.
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
13. From the pleadings and materials on record and also
the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that the Prospectus-
2025 was approved by the Government vide G.O.(Ms.)No.97/
2025/HEDN dated 19.02.2025. Based on the said prospectus the
writ petitioners and others submitted online application for the
entrance examination KEAM-2025 for admission to Engineering
degree courses. The last date of submission of the application
was 10.03.2025. The entrance examination for Engineering
degree courses were held from 23.04.2025 to 29.04.2025, on
different dates.
14. Clause 1.4(a) of the Prospectus-2025 provides that
the admission to Engineering courses shall be regulated on the
basis of merit as assessed by giving equal weightage of 50:50 to
the normalised score obtained in the entrance examination for
Engineering and the grade/marks obtained in Mathematics,
Physics and Chemistry put together in the final year of the
qualifying examination, after effecting the standardization
procedure as described in Clause 9.7.4(b), for computing the
index mark out of 600. In case the candidate has not studied
Chemistry, the marks obtained in Computer Science shall be
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
considered. In case, the candidate has not studied Chemistry
and Computer Science, the marks obtained in Biotechnology
shall be considered. In case, the candidate has not studied
Chemistry, Computer Science and Biotechnology, the marks
obtained in Biology shall be considered. The marks as shown in
the mark list obtained from the Board of Examination of
respective Higher Secondary Board shall be considered for
academic eligibility.
15. Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus-2025 provides that the
prospectus is subject to modification/addition/deletion, as may
be deemed necessary by the Government.
16. Clause 9.7.4(b) of the Prospectus-2025 deals with
rank list for Engineering courses. Clause 9.7.4(b) reads thus;
"9.7.4 Preparation of Rank Lists:
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) Rank list for Engineering courses
(i) Equal weightage of 50:50 shall be given to the
normalized score obtained in the Entrance Examination for
Engineering as described in Clause 9.4.4(i) and the
grade/marks obtained in the final year of the qualifying
examination for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry put
together, after effecting the standardization procedure as
described in Clause 9.7.4(b)(iii). In case, the candidate
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
has not studied Chemistry, the marks obtained in
Computer Science shall be considered. In case, the
candidate has not studied Chemistry and Computer
Science, the marks obtained in Biotechnology shall be
considered. In case, the candidate has not studied
Chemistry, Computer Science and Biotechnology, the
marks obtained in Biology shall be considered.
(ii) The final year marks of the qualifying examination of
each subject Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry/
Computer Science/Biotechnology/ Biology of the students
who have passed the subject, received from the respective
Boards, shall be transformed out of 100. The marks of the
three subjects shall be computed out of 300 after effecting
standardization in each subject.
(iii) The formula for standardization as has been approved
by the Expert Committee constituted vide G.O.(Rt)No.
1758/2011/H.Edn. dated.03.11.2011: The marks secured
by a student in the qualifying examination from any Board
will be standardized with respect to the statistical
parameters such as Global Mean and Global Standard
Deviation. The standardized mark YBG of a candidate of the
stream (B) standardized with respect to the global
reference stream (G) for the subject is
YBG = MG + SG [ XBj - MBj ]
SBj
Where MBj and SBj denote respectively the Mean and
Standard Deviation of the marks out of 100 of all students
who have passed in a subject of the final year of qualifying
examination of any stream (B) of the year j and XBj is the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
mark of a candidate out of 100 for the subject in the
stream (B) of the year j. The Global Mean (MG) of a subject
is the combined average of the marks of that subject out
of hundred of all students who have passed in that subject
(Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry/Computer Science/
Biotechnology/Biology as the case may be), of the final
year of the Qualifying Examination of Kerala HSE, Kerala
VHSE, CBSE and CISCE Boards taken together for the
period from 2009 to 2025. The Global Standard Deviation
(SG) of the subject is the combined standard deviation of
marks of that subject out of hundred of all students who
have passed in that subject (Mathematics, Physics and
Chemistry/Computer Science/ Biotechnology/Biology as
the case may be), of the final year of the Qualifying
Examination of Kerala HSE, Kerala VHSE, CBSE and CISCE
Boards taken together for the period from 2009 to 2025.
(iv) The subjects of the qualifying examination considered
for the computation of marks for the purpose of ranking
shall be Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. The marks of
the concerned subject out of hundred or an equivalent
mark out of hundred, as given in the final year mark list of
the Qualifying Examination of any plus two stream shall be
considered. In case, the candidate has not studied
Chemistry, the marks obtained in Computer Science shall
be considered. In case, the candidate has not studied
Chemistry and Computer Science, the marks obtained in
Biotechnology shall be considered. In case, the candidate
has not studied Chemistry, Computer Science and
Biotechnology, the marks obtained in Biology shall be
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
considered.
(v) Standardization of the marks of the subjects as per the
clauses 9.7.4(b)(iii)&(iv) will be effected under the
supervision of the Authority concerned. The standardized
mark YBG shall be taken as it is obtained from the formula
given in clause 9.7.4(b)(iii). The sum of the standardized
marks of three subjects Mathematics, Physics and
Chemistry/Computer Science/Biotechnology/ Biology as
the case may be, shall be limited to three hundred.
(vi) The normalized score obtained by the candidate in the
Engineering Entrance Examination shall be computed out
of 300, and added to the total standardized marks of
Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry/Computer Science/
Biotechnology/Biology as the case may be, of the final year
of the Qualifying Examination, computed out of 300, both
corrected to four places of decimals. The rank list for
Engineering Courses shall be prepared based on the total
marks obtained out of an Index mark of 600, computed as
above.
(vii) If any Board/Authority provides results by letter
grades/CGPA/ OGPA, etc., the candidate concerned shall
have to submit the marks equivalent as required, from the
Board/Authority concerned, failing which the decision on
standardization of marks shall be taken based on the
available information by the Committee of Statisticians
constituted vide G.O.(Rt)No.1061/2017/H.EDN dated
07.06.2017, which shall be final and binding on the
applicant.
(viii) If any Board/Authority fails to provide data required
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
for the process of standardization for any year, the mean
and standard deviation available for the nearest year after
the year of passing of the candidate for the concerned
Board/Authority shall be considered for standardization of
marks and such decision shall be final and binding on the
applicant.
(ix) If any Board/Authority fails to provide data requested
and required for the process of standardization and the
data for the nearest years after the year of passing of the
candidate are also not available, then the mean and
standard deviation of CBSE for the respective years, or in
the absence of such information from CBSE, the mean and
standard deviation of CBSE available for the nearest year
after the year of passing of the candidate shall be
considered for standardization of marks and such decision
shall be final and binding on the applicant.
17. As already noticed hereinbefore, the issue raised in
these writ appeals and the connected writ petition centres
around a Government order dated 01.07.2025, which is marked
as Ext.P12 in W.P.(C)No.24951 of 2025, whereby the
standardization formula in the Prospectus-2025, was changed by
the State, invoking the provisions under Clause 1.6 of the
Prospectus-2025, on the ground that there exists a disparity
while standardising the marks of those students who completed
12th Standard education in Kerala Higher Secondary stream and
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
other streams, including CBSE. As evident from Clause
9.7.4(b)(iii) of the Prospectus-2025, the said standardization
formula was one approved by the Expert Committee constituted
vide G.O.(Rt)No. 1758/2011/H.Edn. dated 03.11.2011.
18. It is not in dispute that the request of the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations for modification of the
standardization formula was one made before the Government
on 03.11.2024. It is thereafter that the Government vide
G.O.(Ms.)No.97/2025/HEDN dated 19.02.2025 approved the
Prospectus-2025.
19. The relevant extract of the report dated 02.06.2025
submitted by the Standardization Review Committee before the
Government is extracted hereunder;
"After the first meeting of the Standardization Review
Committee, sample data derived from the mark data of
KEAM Engineering applicants from 2012 to 2024 provided
as per the Committee's request was used to examine four
different types of formulas. Based on the preliminary
observations, the method that uses statistical
parameters such as Overall Range, Group Minimum, and
Group Range, Group Minimum was considered by the
committee members to be the most appropriate.
However, the committee members opined that
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
implementing the new method this year would not be
scientifically appropriate, as a more comprehensive study
is required to make an authoritative comparison with the
current method. It was also noted that the formula was
tested using only a very limited sample and that the
parameters used in the formula were derived from that
sample itself. Therefore, the committee concluded that a
decision can only be made after standardizing the Plus
Two marks of applicants both qualified and nonqualified
from various boards across different subjects for the past
10 years, applying the new formula to this complete
dataset, and comparing it with the existing method. Since
the software currently used for the existing method is
available at the CEE office, the committee members
suggested that the CEE office would be the most
convenient for testing the new formula. However, it was
clarified by the Joint Commissioner (Computer) that the
available software is designed to work after the
standardization is done using the required parameters,
and that the derivation of those parameters is the
responsibility of the currently appointed Standardization
Committee by the Government.
Although calculating standardized marks using the formula
is a relatively straightforward task, deriving the required
parameters demands expert input. Therefore, the
committee members informed that a detailed report on
the new formula and its associated parameters would be
submitted shortly. The third meeting of the
Standardization Review Committee, chaired by the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
Honourable Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, was
held online on Monday, May 26, 2025.
Using the Plus Two examination marks received from
Kerala Higher Secondary, CBSE, and CISC boards for the
period from 2011 to 2024, the marks for these years were
standardized using the new method as suggested by the
Standardization Review Committee.
The results obtained through this new standardization
process, as well as those obtained using the current
method, were presented to the committee. Following the
examination of this data, the findings were discussed in
detail, and the committee reviewed the key differences
between the current method and the proposed new
method one by one. It was opined that the new method
exhibits greater outlier sensitivity, and therefore, precise
and scientifically sound provisions must be established to
appropriately handle both the lowest and highest marks.
Although the average difference between the marks
before and after standardization appears to be lower in
the new method compared to the existing method which
at first glance seems more acceptable the committee
opined that more authoritative studies and validations are
necessary before this can be accepted as a definitive
advantage. The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations
requested the committee members to also examine the
methods followed in states like Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,
Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana, and to present, in the
next meeting, an assessment of the applicability of those
methods in the context of Kerala.
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
The committee members concluded that it would be
appropriate to maintain the status quo until the
advantages of the new method are proven with
authoritative evidence. The committee members also
stated that a more detailed and authoritative analysis
would be prepared and presented at the next meeting.
The fourth meeting of the Standard Review Committee,
chaired by the Honourable Commissioner for Entrance
Examinations, was held online on Friday, May 30, 2025.
The committee reviewed the topics discussed in the
previous meetings. In the context of preparing the rank
list for admission to engineering professional courses, a
proposal was discussed to revise the existing 50:50
weightage ratio currently applied between the normalised
entrance examination marks and the total marks/grades
obtained in the qualifying examination (final year) in
Mathematics, Physics, and Chemistry to a new ratio of
60:40 (Entrance score: 60, Qualifying score: 40). This
proposal was agreed upon by three members, while one
member, Mr. Sivakumar, expressed dissent. Currently,
data from the past 10 years is considered for calculating
the global mean. However, it was decided that data from
the past five years of various boards could also be
considered, and that the impact of using five year data
instead of ten should be studied in detail. Number of years
should be reduced for overall mean and s. d. calculation.
The committee recommended that giving initial scores
may be considered for students studying under the Kerala
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
syllabus. It was also suggested that the committee
constituted as per Government Order G.O.(Rt)No.586/
2025/HEDN dated 14.05.2025 should study this matter
further and adding the raw Plus Two marks directly to the
entrance exam marks, as done in some other states, is
not scientifically appropriate.
The committee opined that introducing a new formula or
making any modifications to the existing one would only
be possible after thorough and detailed studies. It must
also be ensured that any new formula is demonstrably
better than the current one. As it needs more time, the
committee concluded that implementing a new formula
this year is not feasible.
However, the committee recommended that in the present
year, the number of years should be reduced to 5 years
for the calculation of overall mean and standard deviation.
The committee suggested to revise the existing 50:50
weightage ratio currently applied between the normalised
entrance examination marks and the standardized total
marks/grades obtained in the qualifying examination (final
year) to a new ratio of 60:40 (Entrance score: 60,
Qualifying score: 40).
The committee recommended that giving initial scores
may be considered for students studying under the Kerala
syllabus."
20. The Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, vide
report dated 05.06.2025, submitted his recommendations before
the Government, suggesting five options, enclosing therewith the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
report dated 02.06.2025 of the Standardization Review
Committee. Thereafter, the Government order dated 01.07.2025
has been issued, whereby the Government amended the
Prospectus-2025, as stated in that order. English translation of
the Government order dated 01.07.2025 reads thus;
"Vide order 1st cited above, the Government approved the
prospectus for KEAM, 2025. As per Clause 1.6 of KEAM
2025 prospectus, the Government has the power to make
necessary modifications in the prospectus.
2. Government by order 2nd cited above constituted a
Standardization Review Committee to conduct study on the
method and formula currently used to calculate
standardized/normalised marks of the qualifying
examination for KEAM engineering entrance and to suggest
recommendations for making amendments in the
prospectus. The said Committee submitted its report as
per reference (4).
3. Government had examined the recommendations in the
report submitted by the Standardization Review
Committee as per reference (4) and the suggestions of the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in the reports
submitted as per reference (3) and (5).
4. Government had examined the issue regarding
amendment of KEAM, 2025 prospectus in detail. In order
to arrive at a suitable formula for preparing the rank list
for KEAM, 2025 Entrance Examination, it is hereby ordered
to amend the prospectus to standardize/normalise the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
Plus-Two (Class XII) Board marks as per the formula
mentioned in the Annexure and by adding the marks of
Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry in the ratio of 5:3:2,
while maintaining existing 50:50 ratio for the entrance
examination marks and marks in the Plus Two (Class XII)
Board.
5. The amendments made to the prospectus, approved as
per order 1st cited above, are appended to this order."
21. The amendments made to the Prospectus-2025, vide
the Government order dated 01.07.2025, are shown in the
annexure to the said order, in a tabular form. The amendment
made to Clause 1.4(a) of the Prospectus, 2025 reads thus;
"1.4(a) Admission to Engineering courses shall be
regulated on the basis of merit as assessed by giving equal
weightage of 50:50 to the normalized score obtained in the
Entrance Examination for Engineering and the grade/marks
obtained in the final year of the qualifying examination for
Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry put together in the
ratio 5:3:2, after effecting the normalization procedure as
described in Clause 9.7.4(b), for computing the Index
mark out of 600. In case, the candidate has not studied
Chemistry, the marks obtained in Computer Science shall
be considered. In case, the candidate has not studied
Chemistry and Computer Science, the marks obtained in
Biotechnology shall be considered. In case, the candidate
has not studied Chemistry, Computer Science and
Biotechnology, the marks obtained in Biology shall be
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
considered. The marks as shown in the mark list obtained
from the Board of Examination of respective Higher
Secondary Board shall be considered for academic
eligibility."
22. The amendment made to Clause 9.7.4(b)(i) of the
Prospectus, 2025 reads thus;
"(i) Equal weightage of 50:50 shall be given to the
normalized score obtained in the Entrance Examination for
Engineering as described in Clause 9.4.4(i) and the
grade/marks obtained in the final year of the qualifying
examination for Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry put
together, in the ratio 5:3:2, after effecting the
normalization procedure as described in Clause
9.7.4(b)(iii). In case, the candidate has not studied
Chemistry, the marks obtained in Computer Science shall
be considered. In case, the candidate has not studied
Chemistry and Computer Science, the marks obtained in
Biotechnology shall be considered. In case, the candidate
has not studied Chemistry, Computer Science and
Biotechnology, the marks obtained in Biology shall be
considered."
23. The amendment made to Clause 9.7.4(b)(ii) of
the Prospectus, 2025 reads thus;
"(ii) The final year marks of the qualifying examination of
each subject Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry/
Computer Science/Biotechnology/Biology, shall be
transformed to be out of 100. The marks of the three
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
subjects, after effecting the normalization in each subject,
shall be put together in the ratio 5:3:2 (Mathematics:150,
Physics:90, Chemistry:60) so that the combined marks of
the three subjects is out of 300."
24. The amendment made to Clause 9.7.4(b)(iii) of the
Prospectus, 2025 reads thus;
"(iii) The marks (out of 100) obtained by the students in
the relevant subjects in the qualifying examinations
conducted by the various Boards or Authority shall be
equated with the marks (out of 100) obtained by the
students in the same subjects in the qualifying
examination of the current year conducted by the State
Board of Kerala by adopting the method of normalization
using the following formula.
The normalized mark YB of a candidate of a particular
board, B, is:
Where HjB and HrK denote respectively the highest marks
secured by the students of the board, B, in the year, j,
and the highest marks secured by the students of the
State Board of Kerala in the current year (2025), and X jB
is the mark of a candidate, out of 100, for the subject in
the examination conducted by the board, B in the year, j.
Qualifying examinations of different years of the same
board will be treated as different from each other.
Eg: If the highest mark secured by the students of State
Board of Kerala in Mathematics, this year, is 100/100 and
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
the highest mark secured by a student of any other Board
in the same subject is 95/100, both the highest marks will
be considered to be equal to 100/100. If a student of the
other Board secures 70/100 in Mathematics when the
highest mark secured in Mathematics in the same Board is
95/100, 70/100 marks will be considered to be equal to
73.68/100 marks as arrived at below.
"
25. By the Government order dated 01.07.2025
amendments were also made to other sub-clauses of Clause
9.7.4(b) in the Prospectus, 2025 and also to Clause 9.7.4(g).
26. A reading of the report dated 02.06.2025 submitted
by the Standardization Review Committee, which we have
extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 19, would show that after
detailed discussions the Committee opined that introducing a
new formula or making any modifications to the existing one
would only be possible after thorough and detailed studies and it
must also be ensured that any new formula is demonstrably
better than the current one. Therefore, the recommendation of
the Committee in its report dated 02.06.2025 is that
implementing a new formula during this year is not feasible as it
needs more time. However, the Committee recommended that in
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
the present year, the number of years should be reduced to five
years for the calculation of overall mean and standard deviation.
The Committee also suggested to revise the existing 50:50
weightage ratio currently applied between the normalised
entrance examination marks and the standardized total
marks/grades obtained in the qualifying examination (final year)
to a new ratio of 60:40, i.e., entrance score:60 and qualifying
score:40. The Committee recommended that giving initial scores
may be considered for students studying under the Kerala
Syllabus.
27. A reading of the amended Clauses of the Prospectus-
2025 in the Appendix to the Government order dated 01.07.2025,
some of which have been extracted hereinbefore at paragraphs
21 to 24, would make it explicitly clear that the amendment
made to the standardization formula in the Prospectus-2025 vide
the Government order dated 01.07.2025 are not in tune with the
recommendations of the Standardization Review Committee, as
contained in its report dated 02.06.2025.
28. After referring to Ext.R2(a) calculation statement of
standardized marks produced along with the counter affidavit
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
filed by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations in
W.P.(C)No.24951 of 2025, the learned Advocate General would
submit that as per the amended clauses of the Prospectus-2025,
all students belonging to different streams such as Kerala Higher
Secondary, CBSE and ICSE are treated equally for the purpose of
standardizing the marks obtained in the qualifying examination.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent in
W.A.No.1702 of 2025, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.24767
of 2025 would point out Ext.P4 Score Card of KEAM-2025 and
Ext.P7 Score Card of another candidate, who secured similar
marks for KEAM-2024. According to the learned counsel, the 1st
respondent who secured similar marks in KEAM-2025 is now
pushed to 2000 ranks below the rank of 1907 secured by the
candidate in Ext.P7 Score Card.
29. We are unable to consider the rival contentions on the
above aspect in these proceedings, since the materials relied on
by the Government to arrive at a decision to modify the
standardization formula, which was in force from the year 2011,
are not part of the pleadings and materials on record. The said
materials are also not discernible either from the report dated
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
02.06.2025 submitted by the Standardization Review Committee,
which consists of the experts appointed by the Government, or
the Report dated 05.06.2025 of the Commissioner for Entrance
Examinations. Though copy of the above reports is not part of
the pleadings and materials on record, the learned Advocate
General has made available the same for the perusal of this
Court, with copy to the other side. The modified standardization
formula provides for adding the marks of Mathematics, Physics
and Chemistry in the ratio of 5:3:2, instead of the existing ratio
of 1:1:1, while maintaining the existing 50:50 ratio for the
entrance examination marks and marks in Plus Two (XII) Board.
The Standardization Review Committee has not even suggested
or recommended a modified ratio of 5:3:2 for adding the marks
of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry in its report dated
02.06.2025.
30. Now the issue that remains for consideration is as to
whether the Government, based on the report of the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations or even the report of
the Standardization Review Committee, can modify the
standardization formula prescribed in the Prospectus-2025, in
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
the midway, as done vide the Government order dated
01.07.2025.
31. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge
found that after the entrance examination was held from
23.04.2025 to 29.04.2025, on different dates, the Government
suddenly woke up and amended the prospectus one hour before
the publication of the rank list on 01.07.2025. On the above
aspect, the learned Advocate General would submit that the
Cabinet decision approving the recommendation for modifying
the standardization formula prescribed in the Prospectus-2025
was taken on 30.06.2025, vide item No.3082, and it is thereafter
that the Government order dated 01.07.2025 was issued at
04.48 p.m. The learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners
in the respective writ appeal would point out that the notification
issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations,
publishing the rank list of KEAM-2025, is also one issued on
01.07.2025, at 05.48 p.m.
32. The learned Advocate General would contend that
when the Government found that there exists disparity while
standardizing the marks of those students who completed 12 th
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
Standard education in Kerala Higher Secondary stream and other
streams, including CBSE, the standardizing formula was modified,
in exercise of the powers under Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus-
2025, vide the Government order dated 01.07.2025. When the
standardization formula prescribed in the prospectus offend
Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the Government is well
within its powers to change the said formula, which would not
amount to change of the rules of the game midway.
33. The learned counsel for additional respondents 3 and
4 in W.P.(C)No.24767 of 2025, who are respondents 3 and 4 in
W.A.No.1702 of 2025, who are students completed 12 th Standard
education in Kerala Higher Secondary stream, would adopt the
above argument of the learned Advocate General.
34. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel/
learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners in the writ
appeals would contend that the action of the Government in
modifying the standardization formula prescribed in the
Prospectus-2025, vide the Government order dated 01.07.2025,
would not amount to change of the rules of the game midway.
Clause 1.6 of the prospectus will not authorise the Government
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
to modify or replace the standardizing formula in the prospectus
in the midway and the action of the Government in modifying the
same vide the Government order dated 01.07.2025, would
amount to change of the rules of the game midway. The learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025
would also raise the very same contentions.
35. In Dr.Vinod K.M. [2012 (2) KHC 797], a Division
Bench of this Court was dealing with the challenge made against
the order of the State Government amending the prospectus for
admission to Post Graduate Medical courses in the State, a day
prior to the entrance examination, by which negative marking
was withdrawn. A writ petition was filed challenging the said
order, in which the learned Single Judge refused the interim relief
of staying the operation of amendment to the prospectus. Before
the Division Bench the Government relied on Clause XIX of the
prospectus, which provides that the prospectus is subject to
modification/addition as may be considered necessary by the
Government. It was contended that the Government order
amending the prospectus would not result in changing the rules
after the game has started. The candidates aspiring for seats
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
have no fundamental right to be enforced in respect of the same.
It was also contended that without challenging the rank list the
writ petitioners cannot maintain a challenge against the
Government order whereby negative marking was withdrawn.
Repelling the said contentions, the Division Bench held that the
Government cannot say because of Clause XIX of the prospectus
that they have a right to change the rules of the game at any
time they want. Even if the Government have power to modify or
add to the prospectus, such action must be a reasonable one
without any arbitrariness and it should not suffer from
discrimination. On the facts of the case on hand, the Division
Bench found that though the prospectus was issued somewhere
in December, 2011, till a day before the examination, there was
no move on the part of the Government to withdraw negative
marking for in-service candidates. Everyone concerned must
have been taken aback with such sudden decision, including
some of the in-service candidates. Anything sans reasonableness
and statutory force cannot be approved. Therefore, the Division
Bench found that the argument of the learned Advocate General
that Clause XIX of the prospectus empowers withdrawal of
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
negative marking cannot be accepted.
36. In Dr.Vinod K.M. [2012 (2) KHC 797], the Division
Bench has referred to the decision of another Division Bench in
Dr.Jayakumar E.K. v. Director of Medical Education and
others [ILR 2003 (3) Kerala 46]. In the said decision, the
Division Bench was dealing with a case in which a case in which
the challenge was against the Government order amending the
prospectus for Medical Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses,
2002. In the said case prospectus for the year 2002 was issued
on 26.06.2001 and the last date for submission of application
was 30.11.2001. The prospectus came to be amended after the
last date for submission of the application. The Division Bench
disapproved the said move and held that Clause XVIII of the
prospectus cannot be construed as to confer power on the
Government to change the criteria for eligibility for admission to
the course even after the last date for submission of the
application. At least on the last date for submission of application
the candidates should know definitely the criteria for eligibility
for admission to the course. Neither the Director of Medical
Education nor the Government can be permitted to change the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
criteria for eligibility for admission after the last date for
submission of application. If they are permitted to do so, it would
lead to arbitrary exercise of power to favour or to prejudice
particular candidates depending on the whims and fancies of the
authority concerned. To provide equal opportunity to the
candidates and to maintain fairness and to provide arbitrariness
in the matter of selection of candidates for admission, it is
absolutely necessary that the criteria for eligibility for admission
to the course are not changed after the last date for submission
of application. If at all Clause XVIII empowered the Government
to change the eligibility criteria for admission by issuing
executive orders/notification, the said power can be exercised by
the Government only before the last date for submission of
application and not thereafter. On the date of the impugned
judgment, not only the last date for submission of application
was over but also the final select list for admission had been
published. At that stage if the Government is asked to consider
whether the eligibility criteria should be changed so as to make
Lecturers in Nuclear Medicine also eligible for admission to M.D.
General Medicine Course, the Government will in effect be
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
considering whether two particular individuals (respondents 2
and 3) whose identity is known should be given the benefit of
admission to the detriment of two individuals (appellants) whose
identity also is known. This will strike at the root of the principle
of fairness and equality of opportunity in the matter of selection
of candidates for admission to the course. Hence, the impugned
judgment to the extent it directed the Government to consider
amendment of the prospectus for the year 2002 was set aside by
the Division Bench.
37. In Sreeja S. v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KHC
230], a learned Single Judge of this Court was dealing with a
case in which the challenge was against the amendment made to
the prospectus for admission to Post B.Sc. Degree Courses under
service quota, based on a rank list prepared according to the
rank of the candidates in the Entrance Examination. Clause 1.6.
of the prospectus provides that the prospectus or any part of it is
subject to modification/addition/deletion, as may be necessary
by the Government. On the ground that during all these years
admissions to Post Basic Degree Course, Medical Post Graduate
Degree Course and Medical Super Speciality Course, including
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
Dental Degree Course under service quota, were being made on
the basis of the seniority of the employees in service subject to
their passing of the entrance examination, the Government
amended the prospectus on the ground that the omission to
provide seniority in service as a criteria in the prospectus is a
mistake. Various decisions, including the decision in
Dr.Jayakumar E.K. [ILR 2003 (3) Kerala 46], were relied on
by the learned counsel for the petitioners. After considering the
rival contentions, it was held that even if there is a power to
amend the prospectus, it cannot be exercised at the final stage
of the admission process and going by the decision of the
Division Bench in Dr. Jayakumar E.K. [ILR 2003 (3) Kerala
46] it should have been exercised at least before the last date of
submission of the application and the admission should be based
on the conditions set out in the prospectus as it stood on the last
date for submission of the application. In the said decision the
learned Single Judge has referred to various decisions of this
Court as well as the Apex Court regarding the power conferred
for amending the prospectus.
38. In Rachit Sinha v. Union of India [(2018) 16 SCC
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
655], the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which the writ
petitioners, who participated in the first round of counselling for
the All-India quota seats for admission to the Postgraduate
Courses in Medicine, were aggrieved by the changes that were
made in the method of counselling by the notice dated
09.04.2018. Their grievance was that candidates who were
ineligible for the second round of counselling according to the
earlier procedure were made eligible as per the notice dated
09.04.2018. Another complaint was against the permission
granted to the allottees in the first round of counselling to retain
their seats for two days after the announcement of the results of
the second round of counselling. The changes made by the
notice dated 09.04.2018 were to the effect that even if a
candidate is allotted a seat in the first round but did not report,
he would be entitled to participate in the second round of
counselling. A candidate who had reported but resigned was also
made eligible to participate in the second round of counselling,
contrary to the position that existed prior to 09.04.2018.
According to the writ petitioners, the competition for the second
round of counselling would increase as the above two categories
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
of candidates who were not eligible to participate in the second
round of counselling earlier were permitted to compete for
admissions in the second round of counselling. They contended
that this change should not have been made after the
commencement of admissions for the year.
39. In Rachit Sinha [(2018) 16 SCC 655], the Apex
Court noticed that, it is clear from the record that the Medical
Council of India decided to make certain changes to the method
of admissions to the postgraduate courses to arrest the blocking
of seats by certain candidates which was detrimental to the
interest of meritorious candidates in the All-India quota. There is
material on record to suggest that devious methods were
adopted by certain candidates to block seats in the All-India
quota and resign from those seats later, which resulted in the
reversion of the All-India quota seats to the State quota. The
Medical Counselling Committee identified about thousand
candidates who were indulging in such illegal practice and
proposes to take action against them after a thorough inquiry.
Therefore, the Apex Court held that there is no infringement of
any legal right of the petitioners in the change of the method of
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
counselling made by the notice dated 09.04.2018. Reduction of
chances of admission does not entail in violation of any right. If
the change in the method of counselling was due to the
circumstances mentioned above, there is no reason to interfere.
40. In Seema Sebastain [2023 (3) KHC 284], a
Division Bench of this Court was dealing with a dispute that
pertains to admission for Post Graduate Ayurveda Course-2022
under the service quota for medical officers. The point that came
up for consideration before the Division Bench was as to whether,
after the publication of the final list of candidates in the service
quota, one of the eligibility criteria can be rectified/changed. The
Division Bench noticed that the prospectus settles the
candidates' admission criteria, etc. and gives a fair level playing
field for every candidate who aspires for admission. A new claim
cannot be admitted in the prospectus before the last date of
submitting applications for admission. Amendment to the
prospectus stands totally in a different perspective when there is
a hostile discrimination between or among different classes
standing on the same footing. If the prospectus fixes an
eligibility criteria which offends Article 14 of the Constitution of
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
India, it cannot be said it will hold good for everyone to
participate in the same manner as provided under the
prospectus without amendment. The right to challenge cannot be
taken away merely because there is a timeline fixed in the
prospectus. No doubt, laches may sometimes be canvassed as a
defence to deny relief, but not to reject the challenge. When all
similarly situated persons are not treated alike, that is open for
challenge before the Constitutional Court. An injustice cured
cannot be considered as a change of eligibility criteria. If such
arguments are sustained, that would amount to a denial of the
right to challenge such arbitrary clauses in the prospectus. No
candidates can be denuded of fundamental rights on the ground
that the prospectus sets a deadline.
41. In Seema Sebastain [2023 (3) KHC 284], on the
facts of the case at hand, the Division Bench noticed that the
retirement age for teachers' quota is fixed at 60. No one has any
dispute on that. The Medical Officer, who enrolled after
01.04.2013 under the National Pension Scheme, also attains
retirement at age 60. They stand at par in regard to the criteria
for retirement. There cannot be discrimination among the same
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
class of employees who are retiring at the same age. The
objective criteria for fixing the upper age limit is that there
should be seven years of service left after the completion of the
course. The same rule must exist for all candidates in similar
circumstances. When the same class of persons are treated
differently, it results in discrimination. Merely for the reason that
the Government passed an order, that does not cease to be a
correctional order to uphold the concept of 'equality' as
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,
the Division Bench was of the considered view that the
Government was justified in passing an order changing the
eligibility criteria. The Division Bench noticed that the
Government acted on the basis of the orders of this Court as well
as on the basis of the power reserved by the Government in the
prospectus, to amend the prospectus. This would certainly
impact the rights of other candidates. The other candidates can
object to such changes if any of their accrued rights are being
divested consequent upon changing of the eligibility criteria.
Mere inclusion in the select list will not confer any candidate with
an indefeasible right to claim admission in accordance with the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
original ranking. Recasting a rank list would remove a patent
injustice, which is an inevitable consequence of that process. It
is not a case where candidates have been admitted to the
programme and have started attending classes after the
admission. No rights of the other candidates have now been
taken away. Rearrangement of the rank may lower the prospects
of getting admission. By inclusion in the select list, one is having
only a legitimate expectation for consideration for admission and
no right for admission has been crystallized by such inclusion.
The legitimate expectation can be imperilled by a change of
circumstances, an act of God or by judicial intervention.
42. In Jumni Nasry [2024:KER:20723] a Division
Bench of this Court was dealing with the challenge against an
order dated 20.05.2023 issued by the Ayush Department,
Government of Kerala, permitting the inter-changing of special
reservation seats for BHMS admission at Government
Homeopathy Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram and the
Government Homeopathic Medical College, Kozhikode, on
rotation basis as per the prospectus for admission to Professional
Degree Courses-UG Admission for the year 2023. Clause 1.6. of
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
the prospectus empowers the State Government to
modify/add/delete the provisions in the prospectus. Therefore,
the contention was that the decision dated 20.05.2023 is one
taken after considering the relevant facts and the earlier
admission to the reserved quota. After considering the rival
contentions, the Division Bench found that though Clause 1.6. of
the prospectus empowers the State Government to
modify/add/delete the provisions in the prospectus, as may be
deemed necessary, the said power cannot be used arbitrarily
when the authority was fully aware of the decision by the
Revamp Committee of the UGC and request for inter-change of
seats was pending consideration before the issuance of the
prospectus dated 16.03.2023. Therefore, the Division Bench
found that the submission advanced by the learned Senior
Government Pleader regarding the power under Clause 1.6. of
the prospectus cannot be made applicable in the facts of the
case at hand.
43. In Tej Prakash Pathak [(2025) 2 SCC 1], in the
context of recruitment to public service the Apex Court held that
the eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
the time of commencement of recruitment process, cannot be
changed midway through the recruitment process unless the
extant rules so permit. Even if such a change is permissible
under the extant rules or the advertisement, the change would
have to meet the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution
and satisfy the test of arbitrariness.
44. In the instant case, the amendment made to the
Prospectus-2025, vide the Government order dated 01.07.2025,
is in respect of the standardization formula followed in KEAM
from the year 2011 onwards. As evident from Clause 9.7.4(b)(iii)
of the Prospectus-2025, the said standardization formula was
one approved by the Expert Committee constituted vide
G.O.(Rt)No. 1758/2011/H.Edn. dated 03.11.2011. Now, a
formula for standardization, which is substantially at variance
with the existing formula, is introduced by way of that
amendment. The said fact is not in serious dispute.
45. The request of the Commissioner for Entrance
Examinations for modification of the standardization formula was
one made before the Government on 03.11.2024. It is thereafter
that the Government vide G.O.(Ms.)No.97/2025/HEDN dated
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
19.02.2025 approved the Prospectus-2025. In the report dated
02.06.2025 submitted by the Standardization Review Committee,
which we have extracted hereinbefore at paragraph 19, the
Committee after detailed discussions opined that introducing a
new formula or making any modifications to the existing one
would only be possible after thorough and detailed studies and it
must also be ensured that any new formula is demonstrably
better than the current one. Therefore, the recommendation of
the Committee in its report is that implementing a new formula
during this year is not feasible as it needs more time.
46. As already noticed hereinbefore, the amendment
made to the standardization formula in the Prospectus-2025 vide
the Government order dated 01.07.2025, some of which have
been extracted hereinbefore at paragraphs 21 to 24, are not in
tune with the recommendations of the Standardization Review
Committee, as contained in its report dated 02.06.2025. Even
the materials relied on by the Government to arrive at a decision
to modify the standardization formula, which was in force from
the year 2011, are not part of the pleadings and materials on
record. The said materials are also not discernible either from
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
the report dated 02.06.2025 submitted by the Standardization
Review Committee or the Report dated 05.06.2025 of the
Commissioner for Entrance Examinations.
47. The standardization formula modified vide the
Government order dated 01.07.2025 provides for adding the
marks of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry in the ratio of
5:3:2, instead of the existing ratio of 1:1:1, while maintaining
the existing 50:50 ratio for the entrance examination marks and
marks in Plus Two (XII) Board. The Standardization Review
Committee has not even suggested or recommended a modified
ratio of 5:3:2 for adding the marks of Mathematics, Physics and
Chemistry in its report dated 02.06.2025. The introduction of a
formula for standardization, which is substantially at variance
with the existing formula, just before the publication of the rank
list, is legally impermissible, and the power conferred on the
Government under Clause 1.6 of the Prospectus-2025 would not
enable the Government to introduce a formula for
standardization, which is substantially at variance with the
existing formula, just before the publication of the rank list, in
view of the law laid down in the decisions of this Court in
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
Dr.Jayakumar E.K. [ILR 2003 (3) Kerala 46], Dr.Vinod K.M.
[2012 (2) KHC 797], Sreeja S. [2013 (1) KHC 230] and
Jumni Nasry [2024:KER:20723] and also the decision of the
Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak [(2025) 2 SCC 1] (a
decision in the context of recruitment to public service).
48. The decision of the Apex Court in Rachit Sinha
[(2018) 16 SCC 655] was in the context of an amendment
made to the prospectus for counselling for the All-India quota
seats for admission to the Postgraduate Courses in Medicine
regarding the changes made in the method of counselling, by the
notice dated 09.04.2018, whereby, even if a candidate is allotted
a seat in the first round but did not report, he would be entitled
to participate in the second round of counselling. The Apex Court
noticed that the said modification was made based on the
decision taken by the Medical Council of India to arrest the
blocking of seats by certain candidates which was detrimental to
the interest of meritorious candidates in the All-India quota.
Therefore, the Apex Court held that there is no infringement of
any legal right of the petitioners in the change of the method of
counselling made by the notice dated 09.04.2018, and that, the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
reduction of chances of admission does not entail in violation of
any right.
49. In Seema Sebastain [2023 (3) KHC 284] the
Division Bench of this Court was dealing with question as to
whether after the publication of the final list of candidates in the
service quota for admission to Post Graduate Ayurveda Course-
2022, one of the eligibility criteria can be rectified/changed. The
Division Bench noticed that the retirement age for teachers'
quota is fixed at 60. The Medical Officer, who enrolled after
01.04.2013 under the National Pension Scheme, also attains
retirement at age 60. They stand at par in regard to the criteria
for retirement. When the same class of persons are treated
differently, it results in discrimination. Therefore, the Division
Bench was of the considered view that the Government was
justified in passing an order changing the eligibility criteria.
50. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Rachit Sinha
[(2018) 16 SCC 655] and that laid down by the Division Bench
of this Court in Seema Sebastain [2023 (3) KHC 284] have
no application to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand,
which deals with introduction of a formula for standardization,
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
which is substantially at variance with the existing formula, just
before the publication of the rank list. The said formula provides
for adding the marks of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry in
the ratio of 5:3:2, instead of the existing ratio of 1:1:1, while
maintaining the existing 50:50 ratio for the entrance
examination marks and marks in Plus Two (XII) Board, which
was not even suggested or recommended by the Standardization
Review Committee in its report dated 02.06.2025. Even the
materials relied on by the Government to arrive at a decision to
modify the standardization formula, which was in force from the
year 2011, are not part of the pleadings and materials on record.
Therefore, we find absolutely no force in the contention raised on
behalf of the appellants that the newly introduced
standardization formula would not offend Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
In the result, we find no merits in these writ appeals. The
impugned judgment dated 09.07.2025 of the learned Single
Judge, whereby the Government order dated 01.07.2025 has
been set aside and the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations
has been directed to publish rank list in accordance with the
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
Propspectus-2025, which was approved vide Government order
dated 19.02.2025, i.e., without reference to the amendments
made to the said prospectus vide the Government order dated
01.07.2025, warrants no interference. These writ appeals are
accordingly dismissed and the writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C)No.
25230 of 2025, is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated
09.07.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.24767 of
2025 and connected matters.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
AV
W.A.No.1699, 1700, 1701 & 1702 of 2025
and W.P.(C)No.25230 of 2025 2025:KER:51066
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25230/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit -P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PROSPECTUS FOR ADMISSION TO PROFESSIONAL
DEGREE COURSES 2025 PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit -P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C)NO.
12412/2021 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 13-09-2021
Exhibit -P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.
(MS)NO. 470/2025/HEDN DATED 1-7-2025
