the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the 1st
Agriculture, Medical Entrance Examinations] for the year 2025. As
concerned, for being considered for admission. She passed the
Medical Rank. As per Ext.P1 notification, the facility to choose the
p.m. on 10.09.2025. The 1st respondent successfully registered
2.1. According to the 1st respondent, by Ext.P4 memo
2025:KER:73679
nd
issued from the office of the 2 appellant, she was informed that
Certificate. Therefore, the 1st respondent uploaded Ext.P5, her
dated 04.03.2025. Contending that despite uploading the
c. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to enable and
allow the petitioner to access and submit her course and
college options in the KEAM 2025 portal for all eligible
streams including Medical, Medical Allied, and B.Sc.
2025:KER:73679
Agriculture, either by reopening the portal or by providing
an alternate mechanism;
d. To issue such other orders or directions as may be
deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, for
the effective enforcement of the Petitioner's rights and for
the fair and just treatment of the Petitioner in the ongoing
academic proceedings."
3. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the
appellants, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-writ
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent
University.
4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit
that in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) submitted
by the 1st respondent, her place of birth is shown as 'Mahi' and
whereas in the nativity certificate issued by the Village Officer, the
place of birth of the 1st respondent is shown as in Kerala. Since
the place of birth was differently mentioned in different
documents, the 1st respondent was supposed to submit the
nativity proof of her parents based on Ext.P4 memo issued by the
2nd appellant. The learned Senior Government Pleader further
submitted that, as per notification No.CEE/9/2025-TA1 dated
06.05.2025, candidates were allowed to rectify defects in the
documents till 12.05.2025, and the time so fixed was later
2025:KER:73679
extended till 20.05.2025. Defect list of the candidates was
published on 29.05.2025, and a chance for rectification was given
till 02.06.2025. The details of the 1st respondent were also
included in the above defect list. As per notification
No.CEE/256/2025-TA5 dated 28.06.2025, candidates were again
allowed to rectify the defects in the documents till 03.07.2025.
Even then, the 1st respondent did not rectify the defect and instead
she later filed the writ petition on 10.09.2025. The allotment to
medical/medical allied courses is done as per the schedule fixed
by the Ayush Admission Central Counselling Committee (AACCC),
and 11.09.2025 was the time granted for publishing the 1st
allotment. The option registration facility was till 10.09.2025. By
the time, the ranked list and category list have already been
finalised. The revision of the category list at this juncture will
hamper the entire allotment process and will violate the AACCC
schedule. Therefore, the appellants are constrained to file the
appeal against the interim order.
5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that
the residence of the 1st respondent is nearly 20 kilometres away
from Mahi, but in Kerala. She was born in a hospital at Mahi, and
for the said reason, her place of birth happened to be shown as
2025:KER:73679
Mahi in her SSLC as well as in Ext.P8 birth certificate issued from
the Mahi Municipality. The 1st respondent uploaded the nativity
certificate as stipulated in Ext.P10 prospectus, and her inclusion
in the NK-II category is illegal. She will be put to irreparable
hardships if she is not included in the category of candidates of
Kerala origin.
6. The impugned interim order dated 10.09.2025, passed by
the learned Single Judge reads thus:
"Admit.
2. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and
2. Issue urgent notice by speed post to the 3rd respondent.
3. There will be an interim order directing the 2nd respondent
to provisionally treat the petitioner as 'Keralite' and permit
her to register and submit options for Medical, Medical Allied
and B.Sc. Agriculture Courses through the KEAM 2025
candidate portal, provisionally and subject to further orders
in this writ petition."
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order, the
appellants are now before this Court with the present writ appeal.
8. On the question of maintainability of a writ appeal under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against an interim
order passed by a learned Single Judge during the pendency of
the writ petition, the Larger Bench in K.S. Das v. State of Kerala
[1992 (2) KLT 358] held that the word 'order' in Section 5(i) of
2025:KER:73679
the Act includes, apart from other orders, orders passed by the
High Court in miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petitions
provided the orders are to be in force pending the writ petition.
An appeal would lie against such, if the orders substantially affect
or touch upon the substantial rights or liabilities of the parties or
are matters of moment and cause substantial prejudice to the
parties. The nature of the 'order' appealable belongs to the
category of 'intermediate orders' referred to by the Apex Court in
Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551].
The word 'order' is not confined to 'final order' which disposes of
the writ petition. The 'orders' should not however, be ad-interim
orders in force pending the miscellaneous petition or orders
merely of a procedural nature.
9. In Thomas P.T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and
others [2021 (6) KLT 196], a Division Bench of this Court
noticed that the view that was upheld by the Larger Bench in K.S.
Das [1992 (2) KLT 358] was that even though an appeal could
be filed against an interlocutory order passed in a writ petition, in
order to be qualified for challenge in an appeal, the order shall be
either substantially affecting or touching upon the substantial
rights or liabilities of the parties or which are matters of moment
2025:KER:73679
and cause substantial prejudice to the parties. According to the
Larger Bench, the nature of the order appealable belongs to the
category of intermediate orders referred to by the Apex Court in
Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551]. It was, however, clarified
by the Larger Bench that such orders should not, however, be ad
interim orders or orders merely of a procedural nature.
10. This Court in State of Kerala v. Pradeepkumar A.V.
[2025 (1) KHC 672] wherein one among us [Anil K. Narendran,
J] was a party after considering the issue of maintainability of a
writ appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
against an interim order, by noting the principles laid down in K.S
Das v. State of Kerala [1992 (2) KLT 358], Madhu Limaye
v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551] and Thomas
P.T. and another v. Bijo Thomas and others [2021 (6) KLT
196], held that the interim order of the learned Single Judge in
that particular case not being an order merely procedural in nature
interim and being an order touching upon the substantial rights
and liabilities of the parties and causing substantial prejudice to
the appellants is an interim order qualified for challenge in an
appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
Viewed in the light of the principles laid down in these judgments
2025:KER:73679
we are of the opinion that the present intra court appeal is
maintainable under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, since
it affects the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties and
causing substantial prejudice to the appellants, for the reasons
stated in the succeeding paragraphs of this judgment.
11. Along with the writ appeal, the appellants have produced
Annexure I notification dated 20.02.2025 enlisting the documents
to be enclosed by the applicants, published by the 2nd appellant,
which is produced with a request to receive the said document by
filing I.A.No. 1 of 2025. Similarly, the 1st respondent produced
Annexure A2, her SSLC, and Annexure R1 to R3 documents, which
are the ration card of her family and the SSLC of her parents,
along with I.A.Nos. 2 and 3 of 2025.
12. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior
Government Pleader relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of
this Court in Riya R. Ebenezer and Others v. Union of India
and Others [2019 (2) KLT SN 107] to point out that the validity
of Clause 6.1 in Ext.P10 prospectus is upheld by this Court in that
judgment. The learned Senior Government Pleader further relied
on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Sainulabdin
v. State of Kerala [1995 (2) KLT 629] to point out that unless
2025:KER:73679
any portion of the prospectus is held to be illegal, the Court cannot
direct either amendment of the prospectus or consideration of the
claim of the student in a manner otherwise than that provided in
the prospectus. By relying on the judgments of the Division Bench
of this Court dated 14.08.2020, 14.09.2020 and 28.10.2020 in the
respective writ appeals bearing W.A.No.1080 of 2020,
W.A.No.1183 of 2020 and W.A.No.1404 of 2020, the learned
Senior Government Pleader submitted that if the required
documents are not uploaded within the time frame stipulated in
the prospectus or fixed by the authorities concerned, the
candidates cannot claim the benefit on a later stage by producing
the document.
13. The 1st respondent herein participated in the NEET
examination and secured rank No.11266 in the Kerala State
Medical Rank. She uploaded her SSLC and Nativity Certificate
while submitting the KEAM online application. Since the place of
birth shown in the SSLC is not in Kerala, the 2nd appellant issued
Ext.P4 memo, which reads thus;
"Your RESULT will be WITHHELD for the following reason:
Place of birth is differently mentioned in different
certificates.
If the birth place of candidate is not in Kerala and the place
2025:KER:73679
of birth of candidate's Father/Mother in Kerala, you may
claim Keralite by uploading Birth
Certificate/SSLC/Passport/Nativity certificate issued by
Revenue Authority of parent showing that his/her place of
birth is in Kerala. Any valid certificate of candidate showing
the relationship between candidate and the parent are also
required. More details, see Prospectus, Clause 6.1.1.(a).
Upload Nativity Proof."
14. Except Ext.P5 nativity certificate dated 04.03.2025,
issued by the Village Officer, Kunnummal, wherein her place of
birth is shown as in Kerala, no other document has been submitted
by the 1st respondent within the stipulated time provided for curing
the defects. Thereafter, she approached this Court with the instant
writ petition.
15. Ext.P10 prospectus issued by the 2nd appellant on
19.02.2025 for admission to Professional Degree Courses, 2025,
which has been approved by the Government of Kerala, contains
the general information and rules relating to the entrance
examination and allotment process for Professional Degree
Courses, 2025, and other connected courses. As per the said
prospectus, candidates were also required to visit the website of
the Controller of Entrance Examinations regularly for notifications
and announcements. Clause 6 of Ext.P10 prospectus prescribes
2025:KER:73679
the criteria of eligibility for admission. As per Clause 6.1,
candidates seeking admission to professional courses will be
categorised as Keralite, Non-Keralite Category I (NK-I) and Non-
Keralite Category II (NK-II). The 1st respondent is claiming her
inclusion in the category Keralite. As per Clause 6.1.1, certificates
to prove nativity for Keralites are provided as under;
"6.1.1 Certificates to prove Nativity
(a) Keralites: In order to prove that a candidate is an
Indian Citizen of Kerala origin for the limited purpose of
eligibility for admission, he/she has to upload one of the
following certificates to the online application.
i. The relevant page of Secondary School Leaving Certificate
of the candidate showing the place of birth in Kerala
OR
ii. The relevant page of the Secondary School Leaving
Certificate of either of the parents of the candidate showing
Place of Birth in Kerala with corroborative certificate to
establish the relationship between the parent and the
candidate.
OR
iii. The relevant page of the Passport of the candidate,
issued by Government of India, showing Place of Birth in
Kerala or of either of the parents of the candidate showing
Place of Birth in Kerala with corroborative certificate to
establish the relationship between the parent and the
candidate.
OR
2025:KER:73679
iv. A certificate of birth from the authority competent to
register birth (Panchayat/Municipality /Corporation)
showing the candidate's or either of the parents' (in which
case corroborative certificate to establish the relationship
between the parent and the candidate is necessary) place of
birth in Kerala, to be issued by a competent registering
authority.
OR
v. A certificate from the Village Officer/ Tahsildar to show
that the candidate or his/her father/mother was born in
Kerala. [This is to be obtained in the prescribed format given
in Annexure XXXV]
OR
vi. A certificate in the format given in Annexure XXXV (a)
from the competent authority showing that the parent of the
candidate is an All India Service officer allotted to Kerala
cadre."
16. The 1st respondent is relying on Clause 6.1.1.(a) (v) to
contend that her nativity certificate issued by the Village Officer
alone is sufficient to claim that she has to be included in the
category Keralite, and she has uploaded that document prior to
the cut-off date fixed by the 2nd appellant, whereas the appellants
contend that the place of birth of the 1st respondent is different in
her SSLC and in the nativity certificate and hence she has to
upload some other document stipulated in that clause to claim her
inclusion in the category Keralite.
2025:KER:73679
17. In Riya R. Ebenezer [2019 (2) KLT SN 107], this
Court, while considering the issue of the validity of clause 6.1 of
the prospectus, produced as Ext.P5 therein held that there is no
substance in the challenge made by the petitioners therein.
18. In Sainulabdin [1995 (2) KLT 629], this Court held
thus;
"8. In Romini Susan Kurian v. State [AIR 1992 AP 380]
a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that
the prospectus issued by the University bind the candidate
who seeks admission and unless any portion of the
prospectus is held to be illegal, Court cannot direct either
amendment of the prospectus or consideration of the claim
of a student in a manner otherwise than that provided in the
prospectus."
19. In W.A.Nos.1080 of 2020, 1183 of 2020, 1404 of 2020,
the Division Bench of this Court considered the necessity of
uploading the documents within the time stipulated by the
authorities concerned to rectify the defects and held that the
candidates are duty-bound to upload the certificates within the
time period prescribed in the prospectus by the concerned
authorities. By finding that the candidates in those cases failed to
submit the relevant documents within the time stipulated in the
prospectus, the Division Bench refused to interfere in the
impugned judgments of the learned Single Judges in those writ
2025:KER:73679
appeals and thus ruled in favour of the State.
20. As mentioned above, the 1st respondent has now
produced Annexures R2 and R3 SSLC of her parents, wherein their
place of birth is also shown as in Kerala. But those documents
were not submitted by her before the 2nd appellant, and according
to her that is unnecessary in view of Clause 6.1.1.(a)(v) of
Ext.P10. While passing the impugned order, neither the judgment
of the Division Bench mentioned above nor Annexures R2 and R3
documents were before the learned Single Judge.
21. The 1st respondent has no challenge against any of the
clauses in Ext.P10 prospectus and she has no claim otherwise than
provided in Ext.P10. Hence the judgment in Sainulabdin [1995
(2) KLT 629] has no application to the instant case. Whether by
relying on Clause 6.1.1.(a)(v) of Ext.P10, the 1st respondent can
contend that Ext.P5 nativity certificate alone will be sufficient to
accept her place of birth as in Kerala, when her SSLC shows the
place of birth as Mahi, or in other words when Clause 6.1.1.(a)(v)
of Ext.P10 prescribes nativity certificate issued by the Village
Officer as one of the document to prove the candidate as an Indian
citizen with Kerala Origin, and the 1st respondent uploaded that
document in time, is it necessary to insist for another document
2025:KER:73679
to prove her place of birth, etc, are also matters to be considered
before passing any orders touching the substantial prejudice to
any of the parties to the writ petition. Since the impugned order
was passed without taking into consideration these aspects, we
are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
In the result, this writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the
impugned order dated 10.09.2025, passed by the learned Single
Judge. The parties are at liberty to file an early hearing petition
before the learned Single Judge to bring up the matter for
reconsideration by producing Annexures R2 and R3 documents
produced herein, in the writ petition.
sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
MSA
2025:KER:73679
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED
20.02.2025, ENLISTING THE DOCUMENTS TO
BE ENCLOSED THE APPLICANTS, PUBLISHED BY
THE 2ND WRIT APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC CERTIFICATE OF
RESPONDENT NO.1
Annexure R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD NO.
2161085821 OF PETITIONER
Annexure R2 A TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE
OF THE APPLICANT'S FATHER
Annexure R3 A TRUE COPY OF THE S.S.L.C CERTIFICATE
OF THE APPLICANT'S MOTHER
