AMAN MUHAMMAD FAISAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri.R.Suraj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) As per the prospectus brought out by the Directorate of General Education, a student who aspires for admission for Plus One course in a school situated within the same Grama Panchayath/Municipality/Corporation is entitled to two bonus points. The petitioner contends that his father is an advocate practising at Ernakulam and that he has been residing within the limits of Cochin Corporation limits for the past six years. The petitioner has produced identity cards issued by the Headmaster of the St.Alberts Higher Secondary School, Ernakulam to substantiate that he has been studying from the 8th standard onwards in the said school. The petitioner has also produced a copy of the lease deed which evidences the fact that his father has leased out an apartment in the city. The grievance of the petitioner concerns Ext.P6 circular dtd. 18/8/2021 which says that for being entitled to two bonus points, the student should produce either a ration card or a nativity certificate, if the address details are not seen in the SSLC book. The petitioner refers to Ext.P1 and contends that he is having A+ in all subjects and that denial of bonus points for failing to produce ration card/nativity certificate is clearly arbitrary.

(3.) Sri.R.Suraj Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Dhanya V.S. and Others v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Others [2012(1)KHC 535] and contended that this Court had occasion to hold that the grant of weightage to those candidates who produced nativity certificates evidencing that they belong to a particular place is constitutionally invalid. Reliance is also placed on KPSC and Others v. Jeeja C V and others [2016(2) KHC 270] and Vincy Dinakaran v. State of Kerala [2021(4) KHC 315] to bolster his submissions. According to the learned counsel, as there are materials to suggest that the petitioner has been pursuing his studies at Ernakulam for the past several years, denial of bonus marks to him to pursue his education in the same corporation limits is clearly untenable.