SREEDHARAN NAMBISSAN Vs. COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who has passed M.A English and Comparative Literature Degree from the Pondicherry Central University with Cumulative Grade Point (CGPA) of 9.13, had applied for admission to the M.Phil Degree Programme of the University of Kerala. She had submitted Exhibit P3 application in response to Exhibit P2 notification. The notification specifically provided that the CGPA of the applicant will be converted to marks in percentage using standard process. The petitioner entered her CGPA in Exhibit P3 as 9.13. But the marks in percentage of the petitioner was wrongly shown as 75.95. The petitioner contends that an interview was conducted and Exhibit P4 provisional ranked list was published on 13.10.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner, noticing that persons who had lower CGPA than her had been placed at higher ranks than her, had submitted Exhibit P6 representation before the University on 25.10.2017. The petitioner came to know that her CGPA is to be converted as 91.3% and that she would be entitled to be placed at the 7th rank in the ranked list and would therefore have been eligible for admission. It is contended that memos had been issued on 18th October, 2017 to persons who had lower marks than the petitioner to appear for admission at 10.30 a.m on 26.10.2017 before the Head of the Department of English with originals of the documents for verification. The petitioner had preferred this writ petition on 26.10.2017. On 27.10.2017, when the writ petition came up for admission, the same was posted for instruction of the Standing Counsel and the following interim order was rendered:

(2.) Thereafter, on 29.11.2017, the 6th respondent was impleaded and a seat was directed to be kept vacant for 20 days. The person who has been included as rank No.20 in the ranked list was directed to be impleaded. Consequently, I.A.No.20171 of 2017 to implead additional 7th respondent was filed and the same was allowed on 14.12.2017.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was eligible to be ranked at serial No.7 in the provisional ranked list and was entitled to admission to M.Phil Degree Programme in preference to the 6th respondent as well as the 7th respondent and that the refusal to accommodate the petitioner in spite of the reservation of a seat was illegal and unsustainable.