AFRAH SHAIK Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who got admission for B. Arch course in a self financing College on the basis of her rank in the entrance examination held for KEAM 2020 has filed this writ petition, aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to consider her higher options on the basis of her ranking.

(2.) The petitioner was rank no.250 as per the results of the KEAM 2020 entrance examination conducted for admission to undergraduate course in Architecture, in the common category and rank no.59 in the Muslim category as per Ext.P4 category list. It is stated that the 2nd respondent had issued Ext.P5 notification dated 12.10.2020, inviting options for the 1st allotment to B.Arch courses scheduled on 16.10.2020, which was postponed to 23.10.2020. In the 1st allotment, as per Ext.P6 memo, issued on 23.10.2020, the petitioner was allotted to the College of Architecture, Vellanad, which is a self financing college. As per Ext.P8 notification issued on 07.11.2020, the 2nd respondent invited options from candidates for 2nd allotment in Architecture courses to be submitted from 07.11.2020 to 09.11.2020. In the note to Ext.P8 publication, it was stated that it would be the last allotment to the self financing Engineering/ Architecture/ Pharmacy Colleges and the availability of higher option for those getting allotment in the self financing Engineering/ Archetecture/ Pharmacy colleges would be subject to the orders to be issued by Government, which would be published in the website. It is stated that in the allotment held on 10.11.2020, the candidates up to rank no.58 in the category wise list of Muslim got allotment to Government Colleges and the petitioner was the next candidate, who was to be considered in the next allotment. She points out that in Ext.P9 notification published on 10.11.2020, after the 2nd phase of allotment, it was stated that the higher option of candidates, who got admission in Self financing Colleges, would not be considered for the subsequent allotments, in the light of the various government orders.

(3.) The complaint of the petitioner is that she was denied her opportunity to participate in the next allotment on account of the conditions stipulated in Exts.P8 and P9 notifications.