A M S MANNADIAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Original Petition is filed by the Manager of a teachers Training Institute praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit them to fill up the seats lying vacant for the first year T. T. C. course. THE short facts of the case are that the management had admitted more than the prescribed number of candidates during 1993-94 on a mis-interpretation of the Government Order. However, the Government has condoned the act of the management on their relinquishing the right to admit the prescribed number of candidates for two years. THErefore, the management had to admit candidates selected by the Government for the period 1994-95 and 1995-96. Though the Government sent four lists of selected candidates, because many of the candidates did not turn up, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 13-12-1994 (Ext. P1) requesting the Government to permit the management to fill up the remaining vacancies and admit candidates in relaxation of Rules 6,7 and 8 of Chapter XXV of K. E. R. THE petitioner further states that the headmistress of the Institute reported the vacancy position on 13-1-1995 (Ext. P2) stating that there are 15 seats vacant in the first year. According to the petitioner the seats are lying vacant and that the course had begun and unless students are admitted at an early date they will not have the minimum attendance and therefore, the failure on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and therefore, filed the above Original Petition.

(2.) THOUGH in the first blush the contention of the petitioner appears to be genuine, on a careful consideration of the matter it is crystal clear mat the petitioner had made deliberate conceal ment of the material facts with a view to mislead this Court. A cursory study of the various successive O. Ps filed by the petitioner reveal the manipulations and tactics adopted by the petitioner by abusing the process of this Court. The petitioner is fully aware of the fact that as per Rule 6 only 20% of the seats viz. 8 candidates alone can be admitted in the management quota. So there is no possibility of misinterpretation of the Government Order in this regard. The same Manager appears to be in the habit of admitting students in violation of rule 6 and then seek for ratification on the ground of relaxation or approach this Court for the purpose of regularisation, One such order obtained by the petitioner is the judgment in O. P. No. 105/1991 dated 8-1-1991 (Ext. P3 ).

(3.) THUS in spite of the consistent orders of this Court the petitioner went on filing successive petitions for admitting candidates on his own in sheer abuse of the process of the Court. The petitions filed by him can be grouped below for better appreciation of facts.