ILA RAJEEV (MINOR) Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DESIGN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner applied for admission in the first respondent Institute for B.Des (Bachelor of Design) course. A centralized all India selection process is conducted by the first respondent for admission to the said course. The selection process has two stages, preliminary and main. The petitioner has successfully cleared the preliminary stage of the selection process. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the main examination, which consists of two parts, namely, 'Studio Test' and 'Interactive Session'. The first part - Studio Test is conducted through Portfolio Presentation and/or Theme Poster Presentation and the second part - Interactive Session is a test judged by three panel members, wherein the candidates are either given creative tasks or they would be asked questions. The petitioner participated in Studio Test and thereafter she was called for Interactive Session. It is stated that when the results were announced, the first respondent declared that the marks obtained by the candidates for Studio Test have not been taken into account for the purpose of preparing the list of students selected for admission. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the first respondent. She, therefore, seeks directions to the respondents to recalculate the rank position taking into account the marks obtained by her for Studio Test also.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) When the matter was taken up for admission, this Court entertained a doubt as to whether the writ petition seeking the relief aforesaid against the respondents located in the State of Gujarat is maintainable before this Court. When the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to clarify the said aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the stand that insofar as a part of the cause of action for instituting the writ petition has arisen within the territorial limits of the State of Kerala, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, in the light of the provision contained in Article 226(2) of the Constitution. When the learned counsel was required to explain the premise on which it was stated by him that a part of the cause of action for instituting the writ petition has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, it was explained by the learned counsel that all the tests for selection have been conducted online and the petitioner has participated in the tests online from the State of Kerala.