LAWS(KER)-2020-11-782

DEVINA P. Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS

Decided On November 26, 2020
Devina P. Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER FOR ENTRANCE EXAMINATIONS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for KEAM as well as NEET (UG) Examination. It is stated that she belongs to OEC - Kulala Community. She has produced Ext.P3 Non-Creamy Layer Certificate issued by the Tahsildar on 4.12.2019. Producing Ext.P4 confirmation page of KEAM 2020, petitioner claims that she was registered as one belonging to KN- OE-Kulala and had produced Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, Community Certificate, Income Certificate etc. It is stated that she got 325 out of 720 marks as per Ext.P8 Score Card of NEET (UG) Examination and her Kerala State Medical Rank is 23488. It is stated that when the results were published, she was seen included in General Category. Therefore, she submitted an email to the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations on 17.11.2020 and got Ext.P11 Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, dated 18.11.2020 from the Village Officer. It is stated that she received a communication Ext.P10(a) informing her that the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations would accept only the Non- Creamy Layer Certificate issued for State Education purpose. Petitioner got Ext.P11 Certificate thereafter. Stating that the allotment is going on and a person with rank No.23559 got admission to BDS, which can be seen from Ext.P13, petitioner claims that she being Rank No.23488, is entitled to get allotment to BDS in preference to the candidate already allotted in Ext.P13. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to include her in the reservation category of Other Eligible Candidates on the basis of Ext.P11 Non-Creamy Layer Certificate issued on 18.11.2020 for the purpose of future allotment.

(2.) I have considered a series of cases where the students had approached this Court even before the publication of the results of NEET (UG) and all those cases were dismissed. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.21474/2020 and connected cases, in which a similar issue was considered, read as follows: