Kerala High Court
Deborah Jessica Jacob (Minor) vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
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 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1947
WA NO. 2300 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2025 IN WP(C) NO.29002 OF
2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
DEBORAH JESSICA JACOB (MINOR),AGED 17 YEARS
D/O JOYAL JACOB MATHEW, RESIDING AT CHIRAMEL
MULAMOOTIL HOUSE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN JOHN K.VARUGHESE, AGED 73
YEARS, S/O.VARUGHESE, RESIDING AT CHIRAMEL MULAMOOTIL
HOUSE, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695005
BY ADV SRI.NIREESH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 THE COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS (CEE)
7TH FLOOR, KSRTC COMPLEX, OVERBRIDGE, THAMPANOOR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695036
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.G.PRAMOD, SENIOR G.P.
THIS WRIT APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 06.10.2025, THE COURT
ON 23.10.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.29002 of 2025 filed this writ
appeal under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958,
challenging the judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by the learned
Single Judge in that writ petition.
2. The appellant is a citizen of India who was born and
educated in Qatar. Her parents, both Indian citizens, were also
born in Qatar, and are employed as Medical professionals. The
grandparents of the appellant were born in Kerala. The appellant
participated in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-
UG) 2025, conducted by the National Testing Agency. She is
aspiring to pursue the undergraduate medical course (MBBS)
under the Kerala Engineering, Architecture, Medical (KEAM), 2025
stream. She registered with KEAM 2025 to participate in the
centralised allotment process for medical admissions in Kerala and
secured 93.40 percentile with a rank of 12481 in the Kerala State
Medical Rank. As per Clause 6.1 of the KEAM Prospectus 2025,
candidates are categorised into three groups based on nativity,
such as Keralite, Non-Keralite Category I (NK I) and Non-Keralite
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
Category II (NK II). Only those categorised as Keralite are eligible
for reservation benefits, fee concessions and admissions to
medical and medical allied courses in Government, Aided, and
Self-Financing colleges, except where otherwise specified.
According to the appellant, Clause 6.1.1 of the prospectus, which
restricts eligibility to be included as a Keralite solely based on place
of birth documentation and ignores other valid forms of
establishing nativity, is arbitrary, unreasonable and
unconstitutional. The appellant applied for nativity certificate and
was issued with Ext.P4 nativity certificate dated 18.07.2024 by
the Village Officer of Peroorkada, certifying her as a native of
Kerala. However, when she uploaded the said certificate on the
KEAM portal, she was issued with Ext.P5 defect memo by the 2 nd
respondent stating that the result will be withheld on the ground
that the place of birth in the nativity proof is not in Kerala.
Therefore, the appellant approached this Court with the writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
the following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order, or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to treat
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
the petitioner as a "Keralite" for the purpose of KEAM 2025
medical stream admissions based on the valid Nativity
Certificate issued by the Village Officer, produced as Exhibit
P4;
ii) declare that Ext.P7 to the extent that Clause 6.1.1 of the
KEAM Prospectus 2025, restricts 'the evidence for nativity
to documents showing place of birth alone, is arbitrary,
unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution of India;
iii) issue appropriate directions to the 1st and 2nd
respondents to consider framing comprehensive and
inclusive guidelines for issuing Nativity Certificates to
NRKs/NRI applicants".
3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit dated
11.08.2025, opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. It is
inter alia contended in that counter affidavit that, as per
notification No.CEE/9/2025-TA1 dated 20.02.2025, applications
were invited for admission to the Kerala
Engineering/Architecture/Pharmacy/Medical and Medical Allied
Courses. Candidates were required to apply online through the
website of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations from
20.02.2025 to 10.03.2025 up to 5 p.m. Eligibility certificates and
supporting documents could be uploaded until 15.03.2025. In the
passport submitted by the appellant, the place of birth was shown
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
as Qatar, whereas in the nativity certificate issued by the Village
Officer, the place of birth was shown as Kerala. Since the place
was mentioned differently in different documents, a memo was
issued to the appellant to submit the nativity proof of the parents.
But as per the passport of the parents submitted by the appellant,
the place of birth was Qatar. Thereafter, the appellant submitted
birth proof of her grandparents as Kerala, belatedly after the last
date for curing defects. The appellant was sleeping over her
right by not pursuing her remedy at the appropriate time. She
chose to prefer her legal remedy at the fag end of the process and
that too by pointing out the date of Ext.P4 as 18.07.2024, though
it is one issued after the last date for curing defects.
4. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of
materials on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ
petition by the impugned judgment. Paragraphs 7 to 10 of that
judgment read thus:
"7. The argument of the petitioner is that though her place
of birth is Qatar, her parents and grandparents have strong
bonding with the Kerala. The petitioner's father holds a
Driving Licence issued from Kerala. Parents of the petitioner
hold Indian Passport. The petitioner's father is registered
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
with the Travancore Cochin Medical Council. The petitioner
is not included in Non-Keralite I category on the ground that
neither the petitioner nor the parents are born in Kerala.
8. Clause 6.1.1 of the Prospectus provides that only those
whose own or whose parent's place of birth is in Kerala
alone will be treated as natives of Kerala. According to the
petitioner, the said rule goes against Rule 226 of the Kerala
Land Revenue Manual and the E-governance norms under
the Akshaya Centres. Nativity Certificates are issued on the
basis of the grandparents' nativity also.
9. In the case of the petitioner, I am of the view that the
legal grounds urged by the petitioner need not be
adjudicated. The Prospectus for KEAM 2025 was issued on
19.02.2025. The defect memo was issued to the petitioner
on 06.05.2025. The Government Pleader would submit that
four chances were given to the candidate for production of
relevant documents and for curing the defects. Time was
granted up to 03.07.2025. The petitioner obtained Ext.P4
Nativity Certificate only on 18.07.2024. There is
considerable delay on the part of the petitioner in
approaching this Court.
10. The petitioner has not challenged the Prospectus at the
first instance. The petitioner has not uploaded necessary
documents even during the extended time granted to the
candidates. The petitioner produced Ext.P4 Nativity
Certificate only after the last date for uploading the
necessary documents. In the circumstances, the petitioner
is not entitled to any relief.
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
The writ petition is hence dismissed".
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the grandparents of the appellant were born in Kerala and hence
her parents are persons of Kerala origin. The appellant was born
to those parents, and hence, she is to be categorised as Keralite
as provided in Clause 6.1 (i) of Ext.P7 prospectus. But Clause
6.1.1 (a) of Ext.P7 which prescribed certain documents to prove a
candidate as a Keralite, is not in consonance with the intention
behind the fixation of the Keralite category in Clause 6.1(i) of
Ext.P7 and hence liable to be struck down. The segregation of a
candidate as born in Kerala and not born in Kerala is absent in
Clause 6.1.1. The 2nd respondent is estopped from claiming
anything more than that stipulated in Clause 6.1. By relying on
Ext.P8 judgment dated 29.07.2021 in W.P.(C) No.12172 of 2021,
the learned counsel argued that the place of birth of a person is
irrelevant to ascertain the question as to whether a person belongs
to the State of Kerala, and what is relevant is the social
belongingness of the person.
7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
Pleader submitted that the issue to be decided is whether the
appellant substantiated her claim of Kerala origin by producing the
relevant documents within a time frame stipulated in Ext.P7
prospectus, which was extended till 03.07.2025. Even Ext.P4
nativity certificate obtained by the appellant is on 18.07.2024,
much after the cut-off date fixed by the 2nd respondent. The
appellant filed the writ petition in the month of August 2025, and
for the said reason also the writ petition may not be entertainable.
8. The appellant claims her status as Keralite, relying on
Ext.P7 prospectus issued by the 2nd respondent. Clause 6.1
defines the candidates seeking admission to professional courses
as Keralite, Non-Keralite Category I (NK I) and Non-Keralite
Category II (NKII). Clause 6.1 (i) of Ext.P7 defines Keralite as a
candidate of Kerala origin. It further states that children of All
India Service (AIS) officers (Non-Keralites) allotted to Kerala cadre
are deemed to be Keralites as per G.O.(Rt) No.822/08/H.Edn.
dated 29.05.2008. But they will not be eligible for
communal/special/persons with disabilities reservation or any fee
concession. Clause 6.1.1 of Ext.P7 prescribes the certificate to
prove nativity. Clause 6.1.1(a) prescribes the certificate necessary
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
to be produced to claim the status of Keralite. The said Clause
reads thus:
"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.
OR
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
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
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
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.
9. Neither the appellant nor her parents admittedly born
in Kerala. She claims the status of Kerala origin on the basis of the
fact that her grandparents were born in Kerala. She is challenging
the certificates prescribed under Clause 6.1.1(a) of Ext.P7 as not
in consonance with Clause 6.1 of Ext.P7. But a combined reading
of Clause 6.1(i) and Clause 6.1.1(a) of Ext.P7 does not show that
there is any discrepancy that goes against Clause 6.1(i) in Clause
6.1.1 (a).
10. During the course of arguments, the learned Senior
Government Pleader relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
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.P7 prospectus is upheld by this Court in that
judgment. The learned Senior Government Pleader further relied
on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court dated
14.08.2020, 14.09.2020 and 28.10.2020 in W.A.Nos.1080, 1183
and 1404 of 2020 respectively, to argue that 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.
11. 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 thus:
"5. The basic question canvassed before us is with regard to
the validity of Clause 6.1 in Ext.P5. Clause 6 stipulates the
criteria for eligibility for admission. It is provided in Clause
6.1 that only Indian citizens, persons of Indian origin,
overseas citizens of India would be eligible for admission.
The clause further goes on to categorize candidates into Non
- Keralite Category - I (NK - I) and Non - Keralite Category
- II (NK - II). A candidate of Kerala origin is categorized as
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
a Keralite. The said category would include children of All
India Service Officers (Non - Keralites) allotted to Kerala
cadre who are deemed to be Keralites, but they would not
be eligible for communal/ Special/Persons with Disabilities
reservation or any fee concession. NK - I category includes
a person who is not of Kerala origin, who has undergone
qualifying course in Kerala and who is the son/daughter of
Non - Keralite parents belonging to Government of
India/Defence Service, posted to Kerala. It also includes a
candidate who has undergone qualifying course in Kerala
and who is the son/ daughter of Non - Keralite parents
serving or served Government of Kerala for a minimum
period of two years. A candidate who has been a resident of
Kerala for more than a period of five years within a period
of twelve years is also included in the said category.
Candidates who do not come under NK - I category fall
within NK - II category. They are held not eligible for
admission to Medical and Allied Courses including MBBS/
BDS and for admission to Government Engineering Colleges.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
8. The contention in the present case is that, in view of the
fact that the fifth respondent is a College conducted by a
minority community, the right under Art.30 (1) of the
Constitution would entitle the petitioners to claim admission
even though they do not belong to the State of Kerala. In
the above context, paragraph 76 of the decision in T.M.A.
Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2003 SC 355)
(supra) reads as under:
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
"76. If, therefore, the State has to be regarded as the unit
for determining "linguistic minority" visa - vis Art.30, then
with "religious minority" being on the same footing, it is the
State in relation to which the majority or minority status will
have to be determined."
Therefore, even with respect to a religious minority, the
State is the unit for deciding minority. This is for the reason
that a community that is a minority in one State need not
be a minority in another State. With respect to the
contention that paragraph 102 of P.A. Inamdar v. State of
Maharashtra (AIR 2005 SC 3226) (supra) has recognized
the rights of the minorities to admit students from outside
State also, we notice that, what has been permitted by the
said decision is only to have a 'sprinkling' of non - minority
students from other State. Paragraph 102 of the said
decision is extracted hereunder for convenience of
reference:
"102. It necessarily follows from the law laid down in Pai
Foundation (supra) that to establish a minority institution
the institution must primarily cater to the requirements of
that minority of that State else its character of minority
institution is lost. However, to borrow the words of Chief
Justice S. R. Das in Kerala Education Bill a "sprinkling" of
that minority from the other State on the same footing as a
sprinkling of non - minority students, would be permissible
and would not deprive the institution of its essential
character of being a minority institution determined by
reference to that State as a unit."
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
The said 'sprinkling' to which reference has been made by
the Apex Court above, stands satisfied in view of the fact
that, NK - I category in Ext.P5 permits students from other
States who satisfy the stipulations contained therein also,
to be admitted to all Colleges within the State. In other
words, the stipulations contained in Clause 6.1 of Ext.P5
Prospectus do not militate against the permissive grant of a
sprinkling from other States that has been approved by the
Apex Court. In the above view of the matter, we do not find
any substance in the challenge made by the petitioners
before us". [Underline supplied]
12. When the 2nd respondent found the place of birth of the
appellant as not in Kerala, by Ext.P5 defect memo, the appellant
was informed that the result of the appellant will be withheld on
the ground that the place of birth in the nativity certificate is not
in Kerala. The time for curing that defect was extended by the 2nd
respondent till 03.07.2025. Ext.P4 certificate to prove her nativity
as Keralite was obtained by the appellant only on 18.07.2024.
13. The appellant is relying on Ext.P8 judgment of a learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.12172 of 2021 to argue that it is the
social belongingness of the person is relevant and not the place of
birth of that person while ascertaining the question as to whether
the person belongs to the State of Kerala. But Ext.P8 judgment
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
was rendered in a different factual back ground and the challenge
therein was non issuance of nativity certificate to the petitioner
therein, for the reason that the petitioner and her parents were
not born in Kerala. Therefore, the facts therein are not applicable
to the facts of the instant case.
14. 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 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
under challenge in those writ appeals and thus ruled in favour of
the State.
15. The appellant was granted time up to 03.07.2025 to
clear the defects of her place of birth in the nativity certificate
uploaded by her. But she has obtained Ext.P4 only on 18.07.2024.
The appellant did not upload the required document to claim her
W.A.No.2300 of 2025 2025:KER:78319
status as Kerala origin on the website of the 2nd respondent within
the time frame stipulated. When the facts of this case are viewed
in the light of the judgments referred to supra, we are of the
considered opinion that the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Single judge cannot be said as perverse or illegal which
warrants interference by exercising appellate jurisdiction under
Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
