STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT AND ANR. Vs. KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Petitions were all filed by the State of Kerala and the Commissioner of Entrance Examinations challenging interim orders dated 16.02.2015 granted by Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 1306/2014. Since the facts and issues raised are common, we have heard these Writ Petitions together. They are accordingly disposed of together. WP (C) No. 10767 of 2015 is treated as the leading case.

(2.) The second respondent herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Kerala Lokayukta by preferring a complaint before the said authority seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) According to the second respondent, she was an applicant for being admitted to one of the Professional Colleges in the State. She was a candidate for the Entrance Examinations of the Kerala Engineering, Agricultural and Medical Course, 2014. The examination was conducted on 23.04.2014. She was ranked both in the General Merit as well as in the Socially and Educationally Backward Communities (SEBC) Merit. On the strength of her ranking, she was allotted to the College of the third respondent for BDS Course. Accordingly, she took admission in the College, remitted the fees and commenced her studies. According to her, thereafter, the 4th and 5th phase of allotments were made by the authorities on the basis of which, it was found that persons who had been ranked far below the second respondent had obtained admission to Government Colleges both under the General Merit quota as well as under the Ezhava category. As a result, while the second respondent was forced to undergo her studies in a private Self financing College paying higher fees, persons ranked far below her were permitted to study in Government Colleges paying substantially lower fees. It was contended that, as per the subsequent allotments merit had become the causality. There were also allegations in the complaint that the said allotments were vitiated by favouritism and extraneous considerations. Therefore, she sought for the reliefs that are extracted above.